Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.
In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
This isn't so clear cut.
The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
Which is rubbish, right?
So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
bear means to carry. Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
Yes, it does.
And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
Give me a break, this is simple English.
Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies. Glad I was out of town.
I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.
Then you should apologize for wasting our time and pull your head out of your ass. Happy Thanksgiving.
I'll tell you what, I'll put your ass on ignore. How about that.You go run along and kill some injuns, and then when you get back, I'll be out of your sorry life.
Bye.
Nothing but diversion, right wingers?Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia? Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
Article 1, Section 8:
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;
So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority. Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right? That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right. Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state. But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
I am not going to re-quote all the founders again. You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot. You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning. If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
Run along little sheep, run along.
The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
Nothing but diversion, right wingers?Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
Run along little sheep, run along.
The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
The people are the people, if it had meant militia over people, it would’ve said militia.
Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.
In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
This isn't so clear cut.
The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
Which is rubbish, right?
So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.
In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
This isn't so clear cut.
The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
Which is rubbish, right?
So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
Which is rubbish, right?
So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
I’m actually against banning the right for life, I feel if you do the crime, pay the time, but that’s it. After your sentence is up, you get your rights back, no more criminal records on job apps outside of a select few careers like schools, and maybe hospitals. But pay the time, and you get your life and your rights back and you no longer have to be at a major disadvantage the rest of your life.Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
[QU
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Yup these are all infringements. It’s not about “keeping the guns out of the hands of bad people,” it’s about limiting the entire populace, and swinging the hammer hard when they slip up. It’s about making guns into scary grim reapers.[QU
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The problem is that the stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when putting limitations on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I could give many example but there was an arrest last week of a woman from another state passing trough New York that that had a legal gun to be used for the protection of her children. She did not use the gun in an illegal manner or threaten anybody. It was in her car. She was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm and if that ain't "infringing" then nothing is.
A guy had his firearms confiscated because he went to see a doctor about insomnia. A veteran was arrested because he had two unloaded standard AR magazines in the trunk of his car. In commie Kalifornia you can't buy ammo after the 1st of the year unless it goes to a licensed firearms dealer and you go through a background check. The list of Liberal stupidity with "limitations" on the constitutional right goes on and on.
Liberals cannot ever be trusted with anything and their stupid interpretation of "reasonable" gun laws is certainly no exception.
Liberals hate the idea of armed citizens being a strong enough force to be a threat to their precious government and that is the real reason they hate the Second Amendment.
Yup these are all infringements. It’s not about “keeping the guns out of the hands of bad people,” it’s about limiting the entire populace, and swinging the hammer hard when they slip up. It’s about making guns into scary grim reapers.[QU
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The problem is that the stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when putting limitations on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I could give many example but there was an arrest last week of a woman from another state passing trough New York that that had a legal gun to be used for the protection of her children. She did not use the gun in an illegal manner or threaten anybody. It was in her car. She was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm and if that ain't "infringing" then nothing is.
A guy had his firearms confiscated because he went to see a doctor about insomnia. A veteran was arrested because he had two unloaded standard AR magazines in the trunk of his car. In commie Kalifornia you can't buy ammo after the 1st of the year unless it goes to a licensed firearms dealer and you go through a background check. The list of Liberal stupidity with "limitations" on the constitutional right goes on and on.
Liberals cannot ever be trusted with anything and their stupid interpretation of "reasonable" gun laws is certainly no exception.
Liberals hate the idea of armed citizens being a strong enough force to be a threat to their precious government and that is the real reason they hate the Second Amendment.
And the 2nd is the amendment to ensure the existence of the other amendments. It’s a pure transfer of power into the hands of the civilians, like a free state requires.Yup these are all infringements. It’s not about “keeping the guns out of the hands of bad people,” it’s about limiting the entire populace, and swinging the hammer hard when they slip up. It’s about making guns into scary grim reapers.[QU
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The problem is that the stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when putting limitations on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I could give many example but there was an arrest last week of a woman from another state passing trough New York that that had a legal gun to be used for the protection of her children. She did not use the gun in an illegal manner or threaten anybody. It was in her car. She was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm and if that ain't "infringing" then nothing is.
A guy had his firearms confiscated because he went to see a doctor about insomnia. A veteran was arrested because he had two unloaded standard AR magazines in the trunk of his car. In commie Kalifornia you can't buy ammo after the 1st of the year unless it goes to a licensed firearms dealer and you go through a background check. The list of Liberal stupidity with "limitations" on the constitutional right goes on and on.
Liberals cannot ever be trusted with anything and their stupid interpretation of "reasonable" gun laws is certainly no exception.
Liberals hate the idea of armed citizens being a strong enough force to be a threat to their precious government and that is the real reason they hate the Second Amendment.
The lady that got arrested in New York was not a bad person. She was only considered a bad person because the stupid idiots in New York passed the infamous "SAFE Act" which made her a criminal for the mere possession of a firearm, which is blatantly an infringement upon her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. She committed no crime with the gun other than possession. In fact when she was arrested it was in her car. It was not even on her person. How stupid is that? Like I said, you can never trust Liberals with our freedoms. They will always do the wrong thing.
I don't want the filthy out of control corrupt politically correct government putting limitation on my Constitutional rights, do you?
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish a basic set of rights that the government can't infringe upon. If the government can infringe then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it? .
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
