Liberals turn on New Mexico governor over gun suspension

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

People getting shot in the USA, is not an emergency situation requiring the suspension of Constitutional rights.

If we allow such a thing, the next time a GOPer is in the White House he will use another "emergency" to suspend the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. And other legal protections that we rely on.

Again, how's that 18th Amendment going?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

[citation needed]

It was pepper spray, individuals in Denmark can't own pepper spray. At the time the Danish police said she would be charged for using her illegal pepper spray. I don't know if that happened. https://www.news.com.au/world/europe...60e4d7dca1fb82

Hard to find a follow up report on what actually happened.

ETA
https://cphpost.dk/2020-10-02/news/d...-banned-again/

Seems like the Danish outrage about the girl potentially being fined for owning illegal pepper spray helped push the Danes to allow it for personal defence, however they've now banned it again since it was found the vast majority of its use was by criminals.
.....The police stated that in total there had been nine cases of pepper spray being used in self-defence, with just one of these being an attempted robbery. On the other hand, from 2018 to 2019 the number of illegal uses of pepper spray doubled to 1,660....

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Again, how's that 18th Amendment going?

Exactly. Banning a desired commodity only sends it underground and increases crime.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Do you respect the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Why would I respect a non-existent Amendment?

You ask a very silly and illogical question.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Why do you think it's so scary? It's because in the USA (and not in other countries) it can be automatically assumed that any given criminal has a gun.

In what world is crime in the USA only scary when in involves guns?

Wow, just wow.

[Hercules56]

Still waiting for the evidence that the gun crime problems in Albuquerque and the surrounding county is mostly due to people with gun permits.

Waiting.... waiting....

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Why would I respect a non-existent Amendment?

You ask a very silly and illogical question.

The 18th Amendment is not non-existent, it is repealed. It shows that an Amendment to the Constitution is not inviolable. It can be repealed by a subsequent Amendment. Same goes for the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment. If the requisite votes are in it, of course, which is not a simple issue.

Originally Posted by Hercules56

In what world is crime in the USA only scary when in involves guns?

A break-in where the person has a gun is definitely way scarier than a break-in where they don't, yes. An assault with a gun is way scarier than an assault with fists. Guns have a tendency to turn crimes deadly.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Still waiting for the evidence that the gun crime problems in Albuquerque and the surrounding county is mostly due to people with gun permits.

Waiting.... waiting....

Straw argument. Nobody is claiming that. What we are saying is that the people with legal guns need to understand that in order to control their illegal guns, they are going to have to give up some of their guns.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Straw argument. Nobody is claiming that. What we are saying is that the people with legal guns need to understand that in order to control their illegal guns, they are going to have to give up some of their guns.

Not a straw argument. Suspending the right to conceal carry suggests that people who concealed carry with a permit are a major contributor to the crime problems in the area. Its called "logic".

[Tero]

How exactly is this carrying of guns "being necessary to the security of a free state"? I'm confused. If I don't carry a gun, my state is at risk? From whom?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Tero

How exactly is this carrying of guns "being necessary to the security of a free state"? I'm confused. If I don't carry a gun, my state is at risk? From whom?

2A recognized a right of the people to keep and carry guns for personal self defense AND to establish a public militia during times of emergency.

If you don't like it rally your friends and neighbors to get the politicians to change the second amendment or to scrap it.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post14165730

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Tero

How exactly is this carrying of guns "being necessary to the security of a free state"? I'm confused. If I don't carry a gun, my state is at risk? From whom?

It isn't anymore. It's an outdated concept from over 200 years ago. For some, a state is in danger of not being 'free' if its citizens can't walk around with guns. Odd how so many other countries that have strict gun control laws are still 'free': Canada, Australia, Norway, Japan, UK, etc. Some countries learn, some don't.

[Hercules56]

There are lots of new gun laws that would be legal and constitutional according to even this conservative supreme Court.

Permits that require training and classes and field tests are legal.

Banning open carry is probably legal as long as you allow concealed carry with a permit.

Requiring background checks is definitely legal.

We could do all these things.

[Tero]

The states already have national guard. Might as well scrap it then.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Tero

The states already have national guard. Might as well scrap it then.

Exactly. The states' National Guards are our "well regulated militias" now. Joe Blow walking around with his manhood affirming phallic symbol strapped to his belt isn't "capable of competently executing battlefield operations".

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Tero

The states already have national guard. Might as well scrap it then.

Which you know will never happen during our lifetimes. Better to pass more regulations in the meantime. Require permits with training and classes.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Exactly. The states' National Guards are our "well regulated militias" now. Joe Blow walking around with his manhood affirming phallic symbol strapped to his belt isn't "capable of competently executing battlefield operations".

So u think nobody should have the ability to defend themselves or home with a gun?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

So u think nobody should have the ability to defend themselves or home with a gun?

Not getting on the merry-go-round with you

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Not getting on the merry-go-round with you

It's an honest question.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

2A recognized a right of the people to keep and carry guns for personal self defense AND to establish a public militia during times of emergency.

If you don't like it rally your friends and neighbors to get the politicians to change the second amendment or to scrap it.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post14165730

When I read the 2A, I don't see mention of the bearing of arms for personal self defense. I see as the establishing clause the security of the State by a well regulated militia.

In the same way a formal military serves the State, not the individual member of that military. Soldiers are issued such man portable arms as mortars, rocket launchers, grenades and automatic weapons. He does not get to use them for his personal defense at home.

One of the greatest frauds perpetuated upon the American citizenry is this warping of the 2A to include personal defense. The actual words say no such thing.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Lurch

When I read the 2A, I don't see mention of the bearing of arms for personal self defense. I see as the establishing clause the security of the State by a well regulated militia.

In the same way a formal military serves the State, not the individual member of that military. Soldiers are issued such man portable arms as mortars, rocket launchers, grenades and automatic weapons. He does not get to use them for his personal defense at home.

One of the greatest frauds perpetuated upon the American citizenry is this warping of the 2A to include personal defense. The actual words say no such thing.

And yet i bet you think the 14th Amendment somehow guarantees us the right to medical privacy and abortion on demand.

I bet you also think the interstate commerce clause can be used to justify regulating everything and anything that might have not even the slightest things to do with interstate commerce.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Lurch

When I read the 2A, I don't see mention of the bearing of arms for personal self defense. I see as the establishing clause the security of the State by a well regulated militia.

In the same way a formal military serves the State, not the individual member of that military. Soldiers are issued such man portable arms as mortars, rocket launchers, grenades and automatic weapons. He does not get to use them for his personal defense at home.

One of the greatest frauds perpetuated upon the American citizenry is this warping of the 2A to include personal defense. The actual words say no such thing.

The Civil Rights Act, all of the federal regulations and rules justified by using the interstate commerce clause, Roe v Wade, and all of the other major expansions of government in the 20th century show that the specific and the exact wording of constitutional text does not limit what the govt can do with it.

Seriously, you should know that.

Just imagine how many federal rules and regulations and agencies and authorities would completely vanish if we took the text and wording of the Constitution seriously.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

It isn't anymore. It's an outdated concept from over 200 years ago. For some, a state is in danger of not being 'free' if its citizens can't walk around with guns. Odd how so many other countries that have strict gun control laws are still 'free': Canada, Australia, Norway, Japan, UK, etc. Some countries learn, some don't.

I once started a thread asking "Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary for the security of a free State?" It went about as well as you'd expect.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

The Civil Rights Act, all of the federal regulations and rules justified by using the interstate commerce clause, Roe v Wade, and all of the other major expansions of government in the 20th century show that the specific and the exact wording of constitutional text does not limit what the govt can do with it.

Seriously, you should know that.

Just imagine how many federal rules and regulations and agencies and authorities would completely vanish if we took the text and wording of the Constitution seriously.

Do you mean "seriously" or "literally"? Well, there is a 'faction' of Constitutional scholars of the originalist bent who do take the verbiage rather literally.

Expansion upon the Constitution is not proscribed. Indeed, it is recognized as utterly necessary, it being in the province of law-making. As long as such expansion does not violate the Constitution.

In the case of the 2A, in order that a claim of the right to firearms for personal protection be supported as now Constitutional, it would necessitate an Amendment to specify such in as many words. Without such specificity it would be left to personal opinion to decide, with all opinions carrying equal weight. That's chaos, and pretty much the case today, where the opinion of some has expanded this Amendment to include a fictitious, non-existent clause not even hinted at to the most fervently biased interpretation.

By now screeching that "personal protection" is encapsulated within this right, it renders as difficult the regulation of arms sought by those for whom it is dangerous to permit access. Because some faction will say even the mentally ill have the right to the same 'protection' accorded to all others. And of course people who are clearly not of a "well regulated" quality now confrontationally strut about in public with all the regalia of an active shooter baiting law enforcement to challenge their artificially invented right to terrorize the public.

Write out the full Amendment. If more than the maintenance of a "well regulated militia" for the protection of the "State" is even implied, point out where it is to be found in that most spartan, archaic and precise enough prose.

Although I predict the circular merry-go-round response instead...

[arthwollipot]

A literal interpretation of the 2A would be that firearms are only to be used for the defence of the State. The Supreme Court nixed that idea, though.

Shows the danger of relying on a 200-year old document for current public policy.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

A literal interpretation of the 2A would be that firearms are only to be used for the defence of the State. The Supreme Court nixed that idea, though.

Shows the danger of relying on a 200-year old document for current public policy.

And a literal interpretation of the USC states no inalienable right to abortion on demand with no time limits. See how well that worked?

The intent and historical context of a law has meaning, especially when courts are involved.

2A was meant to protect the right to defend one's personal security with firearms AND to arm the public in order to provide for a militia.

Anyone who understands the history and context of the second amendment clearly gets it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Do you mean "seriously" or "literally"? Well, there is a 'faction' of Constitutional scholars of the originalist bent who do take the verbiage rather literally.

Expansion upon the Constitution is not proscribed. Indeed, it is recognized as utterly necessary, it being in the province of law-making. As long as such expansion does not violate the Constitution.

In the case of the 2A, in order that a claim of the right to firearms for personal protection be supported as now Constitutional, it would necessitate an Amendment to specify such in as many words. Without such specificity it would be left to personal opinion to decide, with all opinions carrying equal weight. That's chaos, and pretty much the case today, where the opinion of some has expanded this Amendment to include a fictitious, non-existent clause not even hinted at to the most fervently biased interpretation.

By now screeching that "personal protection" is encapsulated within this right, it renders as difficult the regulation of arms sought by those for whom it is dangerous to permit access. Because some faction will say even the mentally ill have the right to the same 'protection' accorded to all others. And of course people who are clearly not of a "well regulated" quality now confrontationally strut about in public with all the regalia of an active shooter baiting law enforcement to challenge their artificially invented right to terrorize the public.

Write out the full Amendment. If more than the maintenance of a "well regulated militia" for the protection of the "State" is even implied, point out where it is to be found in that most spartan, archaic and precise enough prose.

Although I predict the circular merry-go-round response instead...

According to the White House, the 2nd Amendment, in essence, "gives citizens the right to bear arms".

Seems pretty clear, even Biden gets it.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

According to the White House, the 2nd Amendment, in essence, "gives citizens the right to bear arms".

Seems pretty clear, even Biden gets it.

I'd agree with you. However:

1. It says nothing about concealed carry or even wandering around with them at all times. It just states that American citizens may keep guns.

2. Even if 1 were not true that doesn't mean that it's a good law. It just means it is a law.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

I'd agree with you. However:

1. It says nothing about concealed carry or even wandering around with them at all times. It just states that American citizens may keep guns.

2. Even if 1 were not true that doesn't mean that it's a good law. It just means it is a law.

I never said it was a good law, or a well articulated law. But it is the law and we are obliged to honor it until the law changes.

[Donal]

Do you really need the historical precedents contradicting that notion?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

Do you really need the historical precedents contradicting that notion?

Which notion? Please try quoting a post when you respond to it.

[Donal]

The post preceding mine. You get awful obtuse when you realize you're painfully wrong.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

The post preceding mine. You get awful obtuse when you realize you're painfully wrong.

Actually I am extremely correct as pretty much everyone else seems to be terribly unfamiliar with the history and context of the second amendment.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

According to the White House, the 2nd Amendment, in essence, "gives citizens the right to bear arms".

Seems pretty clear, even Biden gets it.

This seems to be wrong. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the new national government. The new national goverment didn't give citizens the right to bear arms, that right - a natural right - was aleady there. I.e., "shall not be infringed." And the 2A explictly addresses this right to the people; not to the state or congress. Any interpretation of the 2A, or the Bill of Rights, that expands the power of the national goverment at the expense of the state or people is very misguided.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Trausti

This seems to be wrong. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the new national government. The new national goverment didn't give citizens the right to bear arms, that right - a natural right - was aleady there. I.e., "shall not be infringed." And the 2A explictly addresses this right to the people; not to the state or congress. Any interpretation of the 2A, or the Bill of Rights, that expands the power of the national goverment at the expense of the state or people is very misguided.

This is accurate. The Bill of Rights did not bestow any rights, it simply recognized existing ones.

[MarkCorrigan]

Existing ones from where?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Existing ones from where?

Self defense is considered a natural right.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Self defense is considered a natural right.

1. What is a natural right?

2. Why does self defence = gun ownership?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

1. What is a natural right?

2. Why does self defence = gun ownership?

You know what natural rights are. It is not a New concept.

[MarkCorrigan]

I know what people claim they are. I want to know what your answer is.

You didn't answer my second question.