Skip to main content

View Diary: AWB and honesty (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bank robbery is outlawed and banks still get (6+ / 0-)

    robbed. What no one knows, and on one can know is how many banks don't get robbed because of the law.

    You have no idea how much things would be worse today if not for the past AWB, and all of the other law enforcement in this area.

    Saying nothing works is simply a copout , trying to make it so that nothing gets tried.

    (And, for the record, I'm openly in favor of repealing Amendment 2. Outlaw the stuff and people will turn it in. If not, then truly only outlaws will have guns.)

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:58:58 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bad analogy (16+ / 0-)

      Bad for two reasons:
      1) Just as bank robbery is already illegal, assault or murder with a gun is also illegal. So in that sense, your analogy is good only if you're okay with the laws as they are. I.e., sure, people get shot, just like banks get robbed, but at least they're illegal and that's stopping the worst of it.
      2) If you mean gun ownership should be illegal, then the analogy really falls apart. Yes, bank robbery is illegal... because stealing from others is on its face a bad thing. You're taking from others without permission. But simply owning a gun does absolutely no harm to anyone. These are not equivalent actions in the least.  If your analogy is meant as "bank robbery is outlawed, so gun ownership should be outlawed," you haven't presented a very good rationale.

      •  In a society where there were no firearms (or (4+ / 0-)

        nearly so) it would be impossible to argue that personal ownership of firearms served any demonstrable social purpose. Who, exactly, would gun owners be protecting in that scanario?

        But here's where you totally miss the boat. I can't remember exactly the number of the NRA talking point (it's in the top five, though, I know) that says "there are 90,000 firearms laws already, and we still have crimes, so we don't need more laws, we need..."anything but more laws". Again, until you can show that crimes have not been stopped, you have no argument against the efficacy of regulation/prohibition. None. nada. Zilch.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:16:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, me too..."I'm openly in favor of repealing (13+ / 0-)

      Amendment 2".  Then the government will have no authority whatsoever to "regulate" any arms, of anyone, including the militia.

      Perfect, Ughhhhh.

      You do understand the RKBA is not created by the 2nd Amendment, right?  That amendment granted limited authorities to the US government.  The right pre-exists the US constitution.

      I think if we really want to stop bank robbers, we should outlaw banks while were at it.

      No bank, no bank robberies, works for me.

      And if we're going to go to all that trouble of amending the constitution, I really do think the first amendment must be done away with. Too many people starting unfunded wars with the political speech, too many people killing in the name of their faith, too many people being misled by the "free press" not to think any longer.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:16:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Boy, do you need to start reading case law, and (5+ / 0-)

        get out of your own little bubble. In all my years of studying this stuff (starting in law school in 1973) I have never heard anyone as off the wall as you.

        Seriously, I'd suggest that you stand it down a notch, and try to get a grip.

        (And for some suggested reading, start with The Commerce Clause. It'll change your entire perspective of the place and times that you are trying to figure out how to live in.)

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:22:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, might as you will, try to belittle my (7+ / 0-)

          position, I will not buy into your "law school" training. You do need to get a refund on that if this "argument from authority" is all you could come up with here, really.  

          The only valid argument is: force rules this world.  He with the most force, wins.

          Case law must keep in context Supreme Court Decisions.

          United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

              6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

          http://www.apfn.org/...
          In the face of this Supreme Court record, is it accurate for gun control advocates to claim that the non-individual nature of the Second Amendment is “perhaps the most well-settled” point in all of American constitutional law?[313] The extravagant claim cannot survive a reading of what the Supreme Court has actually said about the Second Amendment. In the written opinions of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, the Second Amendment does appear to be reasonably well-settled--as an individual right. The argument that a particular Supreme Court opinion’s language about the Second Amendment does not reflect what the author “really” thought about the Second Amendment cannot be used to ignore all these written opinions—unless we presume that Supreme Court Justices throughout the Republic’s history have written things about the Second Amendment that they did not mean.

          While the Warren Court and the Burger Court offered mixed records on the Second Amendment, the opinions from the Rehnquist Court (including from the Court’s “liberals” Ginsburg and Stevens) are just as clear as the opinions from the Supreme Court Justices of the nineteenth century: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a right that belongs to individual American citizens. Although the boundaries of the Second Amendment have only partially been addressed by Supreme Court jurisprudence, the core of the Second Amendment is clear: the Second Amendment--like the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments--belongs to “the people”, not the government.

          Maybe someday you'll accept history, if it were anything other than what I've presented here, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

          The "commerce clause" is a red-herring, no thanks, I don't need to be intentionally distracted.

          And I guess I win, I have the force of law behind me.

          ;)

          P.S. "Tone" what down again????

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:25:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You came to a "gunfight" with a knife. You're so (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, Quicklund

            far out there that I'd feel guilty for even trying to continue.

            Sorry!

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:35:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Empty words, if you had a legitimate position (7+ / 0-)

              You'd have presented it.

              I do love debate, really.  I actually can admit when I'm wrong and if you could teach me where historically this position is incorrect, I'm willing to listen.

              Saying I'm wrong doesn't mean a thing.  

              I do play a doctor, no no a lawyer on the interwebs though and that gives me authority over all things...really.

              ROFL.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:53:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Funny how it sometimes turns out that ... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk, gerrilea, FrankRose

                some people who "went to law school" were actually only the janitor.  Others, it seems, attended "law school" by studying a limited supply of books in a prison library.  

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:15:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  See you think that "historically" and "legally" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PinHole

                have some sort of magical connection to each other, and you ain't paying me enough to do all of the work that would be needed to get you up to speed in this area.

                Suffice it to say "historically" is generally used by persons fixated on "Original Ientent", and the whole O.I. thing is pretty much only a right wing talking point. I have yet to see that you've put any sort of a left wing spin on your stuff and, until you find a way to do that, you're simply not to be taken seriously on a left wing site.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:37:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Constitution is "left" or "right"?? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  I must "spin" my perspective of the law to met your arbitrary standards?

                  Isn't that what is commonly called propaganda?


                  "When you have the law on your side, pound the law.  When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have neither the law nor the facts going for you, pound the table."
                  Your pounding on the table here may distract the uninitiated, not me.  What is clear however is that you have no legitimate position.

                  Could I refer you to Logical Fallacies for your educational enjoyment?

                  "No True Scotsman."
                  "Red Herring."
                  "Appeal to Authority"

                  None of these fallacious arguments actually address the issues raised.  Do you have historical evidence contrary to mine that shows the US Constitution creates rights, specifically the RKBA's?

                  I'll accept legitimate Supreme Court decisions as the starting point, okay?  And dissents are nice, but they are not admissible as proof your position is actually valid today, in these United States.

                  Work with me.

                  :)

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:13:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again, you need to ask someone on a right wing (0+ / 0-)

                    site to "work with" you. I'm trying to have discussions, not training sessions.

                    But I'll give you one break. Tell me, in "Readers Digest" version what you know about the Federalist Society, and what you think of it. I mean,if you can't even pass this test, then you really need to go back and start over.

                    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                    by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:09:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "No True Scotsman" again? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      Jeeze...here I thought you had a law degree.

                      Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist, great historical debates they had as anonymous posters in the newspapers of the day.

                      In the end, we have a little bit of both worlds they wished to create.

                      IMO, misdirection meant to obfuscate the Ratification Documents submitted by the 13 original States.  The majority of which also presented demands for the newly formed government to include a "bill of rights".  Guarantee's that the new central government could not ever do certain things.  

                      Of course, through the years many "jurists" have been intentionally misdirected and divided by "original intent"....false dichotomies, IMO.

                      It's nice to know what they thought, but there is no lawful obligation to "interpret" what they wrote as binding on how the constitution is currently written.  There is a lawful obligation to those legal documents called the Ratification Documents.  Something the authoritarians of today wish to pretend do not exist.

                      Hey, but again, you keep on keeping on here and believing whatever it is you wish.  Clearly you have nothing and I had hoped for some honest debate, not patronizing false logic.

                      Good day.

                      PS. remind me not to waste any more precious electrons, will ya?!

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:57:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  If the right isn't dependant upon the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dream weaver

        Then logically gun-uncontrol proponents would experience no change were teh 2nd be amended.

        Oh, and by the way, this is the most unintentionally funny claim I have ever heard made (today.)

        [If the 2nd A were repealed]...Then the government will have no authority whatsoever to "regulate" any arms, of anyone, including the militia.
        This reveals a profound misunderstanding of, just about everything.

        There is no mention of freon in the Constitution, yet the federal government manages to regulate it. How can that be?!!!!!!

        •  I have no constitutionally protected right to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk

          own, keep, buy, sell or trade "freon".

          You need to understand that we have a Common Law System, not a Napoleonic Code system.  In a common law system what isn't specifically stated is the privy of the individual and beyond the reach of the government.  IN a Napoleonic Code system, what isn't spelled out is specifically IS the privy of the State.  HUGE difference.  See Sweden, see France, hell see Louisiana, they have a Napoleonic System down there.  

          We have a social compact between all citizens, "We The People", not the Government and "We The People".   The government does not grant me a damn thing, we grant it limited powers and authority because we created it.  It has no inherent powers or rights, it has no right to exist unless we say so... It has limited delegated authorities and obligations.

          Our system evolves and it can, with a new law or policy or court decision, be changed.  Those changes must comply with the fundamental legal document called the Constitution, our social contractwith one another.

          The Constitution grants limited authority to create and control our government.  The Bill of Rights were not "suggestions" or "recommendations".  

          If you wish to grant it more power and authority then "We The People" have established a clause in said document to do so, it's called Article V.

          You'd have me believe that if the 2nd A was repealed and not replaced with something else the Federal Government would retain powers not specifically granted.   Could you then show me where that social contract allows for the regulation of arms by our created government?

          Perhaps Article I Section 8?

          To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

          To provide and maintain a Navy;

          To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

          To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

          To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          See, it doesn't say anywhere else anything about regulating arms of the citizen.

          Go ahead and repeal the 2nd A, you'll find out that I'm correct, the Federal Government would be tying its own hands.  Leaving the issue to the States to decide.

          Which, by the way, the Supreme Court has pretty much done already, haven't they?

          We have a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

          Hope this clarifies things for you.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:52:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And you would not have any such right for guns (0+ / 0-)

            If the 2nd wasn't part of the Constitution. See how that works?

            Let the unintentionallity roll!

            •  I refer you to this historical document: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon

              Hamilton's Federalist #84:

              To the People of the State of New York:

              I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

              Now we do know that the Bill of Rights had to be added or the newly agreed upon constitution and the government it created would have surely failed.

              You may have been misinformed of our mutual history here, take time and review the documents please.

              It just so happens I've compiled said in a diary almost 3 yrs ago.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              Don't take my word, take the words of our founders and the historical records they left us.

              The Constitution does not grant rights to the people whom created it, it never did.  It creates obligations that our government MUST follow.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:30:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  A good question here is what control measures are (7+ / 0-)

      often put in place to discourage people from robbing banks? Security systems, video cameras, controlled access, armed guards. Heck my credit union didn't even have tellers you could walk up to, just a phone bank and those canisters you put deposit slips and money into.

      As for how much worse things would be today, no way to tell. IIRC the studies on the 1994 AWB weren't able to determine if violent crime was reduced due to the ban.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:23:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "no way to tell" - Exactly! That's what I just (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino

        said. It's exactly why you don't have a point when you try to say that past measures have failed, and use that as a justification for not going forward with what is now being suggested.

        You have absolutely no idea, and yet you still feel perfectly justified in calling the majority of the left wing of the U.S. political spectrum "dishonest".

        Are you sre that you wouldn't feel much more comfortable writing this shit on a right wing site?

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:27:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry I thought you said this. (8+ / 0-)
          You have no idea how much things would be worse today if not for the past AWB, and all of the other law enforcement in this area.
          All you are saying is that I don't know how much worse things would be today if not for the 1994 AWB. Which clearly implies that if not for the 1994 AWB things would be worse today (ie, higher rates of gun crime). But the reports I've read clearly state that they couldn't determine if the 1994 AWB did anything to reduce violent crime. One would think that 10 years of data would show the effectiveness of something. So for me, after 10 years if the effectiveness of the AWB can't be determined, well I'm calling that a failure.

          I'm quite comfortable here, thanks for asking though. As for the primary point of my diary, honesty, all I am asking for is that the term assault weapon be dropped and replaced with semi-automatic rifle. Because isn't that what is really wanted, a ban on semi-automatic rifles?

          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

          by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:45:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Taking things out of context has always been (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, Quicklund

            considered to be extremely dishonest. What I said next after your quoted language was exactly this

            "Saying nothing works is simply a copout , trying to make it so that nothing gets tried."

            Gosh, a whole different meaning, isn't it, Mr. Dishonest!

            How many lives have already been saved by all of the things we've already done is, admittedly, unknowable, but pretending that you know that the correct answer is "none" is leagues beyond shameful.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:54:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry I missed the part where I said that (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Robobagpiper, theatre goon, gerrilea

              nothing would work or where I suggested that nothing get tried, hence my omission of the content, since I didn't say such things your statement wasn't relevant to the point I was making.

              After ten years researchers couldn't point to any data that conclusively said that the AWB reduced crime. Legislation like that is a failure, so I don't see why trying it again will be any different. If people want to focus on guns instead of the criminal pulling the trigger, they should go for it. I think that continuing to move in such a direction is misguided, but that's me.

              I think limiting magazine capacity stands a reasonable chance in reducing the severity of mass shootings but banning semi-automatic rifles based on looks is in my opinion asinine, when it is the weapons cyclic rate of fire that is the real issue, and that can only be addressed by either banning semi-automatic rifles or by mandating that firearms manufacturers mechanically limit a weapons cyclic rate of fire.

              You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

              by oldpunk on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:17:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site