Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Thank you, LarryD and Ron. Nice to get a bit of positive feedback in the morass of "idiot," etc.
Course, Ksolem is another "idiot" too. Us "idiots" gotta stick together; we're a shrinking minority in an ever-growing sea of people SO smart that they KNOW, absolutely KNOW, how it OUGHT to be for everybody.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ahh, looks like TGT is another "idiot."
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Speaking of training, there is a 4 fold increase this year alone in civilians taking more serious combat classes. This is just in CT. Part of the reason is the interest and availability of retired military instructors. After the explosion of new people joining the ranks of the armed this year after Newtown, I think this interest is a great thing.
I do think training is critical, esp. real live-fire drills with simulated munitions. Shooting at paper 50 yards away just doesn't cut it.
And the funny thing a lot of the "anti's" keep harping on is the training aspect. They assume local and state police, rank n' file military, and other triple letter agency fodder are receiving SEAL-like intensive training. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your average cop and solider is FRIGHTENINGLY untrained. I'd put most police that we shoot with up there as some of the most inept and sometimes dangerous folks out there. Dangerous because they don't tend to listen.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
To be more specific, the decrease in gun murders and gun crime was between 1994 and 1999. I see the number of "firearms to market" (which I suppose is intended to be a proxy for firearm ownership) has steadily increased, according to TGT's "figure." You realize in that case gun ownership can not be the primary cause of that decrease in gun murders/violence, right?
As pointed out over and over and over, the decrease in gun murders and gun crimes occurred during the federally required waiting period and other gun legislation. That is a FACT based on real data. Ron suggested the increase in CCW permitting also increased, but failed to provide any proof that the number of permits issued actually increased or when they increased. I think this is very interesting and I honestly wish he would find some supporting data. If his idea is true, we should see a decrease in gun crime as a result of the increase in CCWs that resulted after the more recent gun "debate."
I commend Ron on his idea, but without proof it fails to contend with the strongest current hypothesis to explain the decline:
The introduction of a federally required waiting period and other gun legislation between 1994 and 1999 was the leading cause of reduced gun murders and gun crimes between 1994 and 1999.
Any other contending hypotheses?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Federally required waiting period?
Run that by me again. WTF are you talking about?
And how come it didn't exist in Utah?
And why hasn't anybody called ME an idiot?
(I feel so neglected)
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
The Brady Bill Toker. Look it up.
You may be an idiot, but I have not seen clear evidence... just ramblings about some numbers and letters, which I assume refer to some cool hardware you have that might actually be fun to shoot... if you are into that sort of thing.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
And why hasn't anybody called ME an idiot?
(I feel so neglected)
Because you are the best armed "idiot" here.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
Kris, if he was so much for arming the people why under President Washington did he go to Pennsylvania & disarm the people revolting from our gov. & hang the leaders.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I'm really angry now!
The guy with the guns for sale out of the trunk of his car never showed up.
I waited in the alley for a whole week ......
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
Dude never showed -- that sucks.
My neighbor has a cannon he might sell you.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
I witnessed Kris fixing a recalcitrant VW Rabbit with seven shots form a pistol while it's owner pleaded with him,
"Don't shoot my wife's car!"
It ran fine after that,
just a bit noisy.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
It ran fine after that, just a bit noisy.
Nice! lol
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Kris, if he was so much for arming the people why under President Washington did he go to Pennsylvania & disarm the people revolting from our gov. & hang the leaders.
Traitors are not "the people."
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
blahblah- what do you mean re handguns? Just curious.
The Supreme Court found a constitutional right to individual ownership-- I disagree, and think the Court chose its own inaccurate history in making its opinion, but that's now the law of the land. As an aside, I've owned guns, have shot plenty and have no real dog in this fight.
The question now will be to what extent regulation will be allowed. In my opinion the NRA recognizes that is a losing issue in the courts and thus spends its efforts at the legislative / a.m. radio level.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
In 1776 were not the people traitors?
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
in order to see that [properly arming and equipping the people] be not [left unattended through carelessness], it will be [logically unavoidable] to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. - A. Hamilton, FEDERALIST 29
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Can you give a single example of a principle espoused in the Federalist Papers that did not make it into the Constitution?
5 minutes it took, if somewhat the inverse of your challenge: I could also go into the several references about the vital importance of abolishing slavery when the constitution prohibited its abolition for at least twenty years and did nothing to promote its abolition thereafter. A compromise, just like the rest of the entire document.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.
The rest of the paragraph gives ammunition to both side of this particular discussion, but you repeatedly cite the Federalist Papers as support for your arguments when one of those papers affirms that your precious Second Amendment should not exist at all! My original point is that the Federalist papers were only one side of the constitutional discussion, and the excerpt above demonstrates just that.
Once again I ask, when reminded here of the Bill of Rights, why is it illegal for me to put up a 30ft high billboard in my yard, illegal to blare my music at 2am, illegal for me to organize a march on DC without permits, yet perfectly legal for me to sell a gun to a total stranger with no responsibility to ensure that he is not a felon? What is so special about the second amendment that makes it more important than any of those other rights, that it should not be restricted when it infringes on the equal rights of others or when the obvious damage to general welfare exceeds the (now) negligible benefit to the common defense?
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The rest of the paragraph gives ammunition to both side of this particular discussion, but you repeatedly cite the Federalist Papers as support for your arguments when one of those papers affirms that your precious Second Amendment should not exist at all! My original point is that the Federalist papers were only one side of the constitutional discussion, and the excerpt above demonstrates just that.
Ahh, finally something really thoughtful! I'm pleased to respond!
First, your "inversion" doesn't satisfy the challenge, because the relation between the Federalist Papers and the Constitution is not a biconditional one. My claim was that the Federalist Papers inform us about the principles underlying the Constitution, not the other way around. And I instantly grant that the Constitution contains compromises. But they are compromises that are principled, and we can find the principles that won the day elucidated in the Federalist Papers.
Now, to your very, very prescient point about the Bill of Rights not being necessary to the Constitution, and even "dangerous." Interestingly enough, this very point MAKES the point of my previous paragraph.
This "unnecessary and even dangerous" passage contains a point that very, very few people have ever stumbled upon, and virtually nobody realizes the nature of the "danger" referred to.
The "enumerated powers" clause of the Constitution was designed to accomplish something that our founders recognized COULD be turned on its head by a Bill of Rights. I'll explain.
After positively and EXHAUSTIVELY listing ALL of the power inhering in the federal government, the clause ends with: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The POINT here was to provide for a STRONG but also extremely LIMITED federal government. And this clause was taken to state, in effect: "The feds have power to do x, y, and z. But THAT'S IT! The feds do NOT get to do ANYTHING else but x, y, and z; and EVERYTHING else that is not x, y, or z remains in the power of the states and/or the people."
But the anti-federalists were SO afraid of an over-powerful federal government that they INSISTED on a Bill of Rights, and thereby got the exact opposite effect that they intended, which is exactly what they were warned about in the passage you quote.
The "danger" in a bill of rights is that it has the potential to logically undo the enumerated powers clause. After all, if you really GET what the enumerated powers clause is doing, a bill of rights IS unnecessary, because you are then saying, in effect: "The feds have power to do x, y, and z. But THAT'S IT! The feds do NOT get to do ANYTHING else but x, y, and z; and EVERYTHING else that is not x, y, or z remains in the power of the states and/or the people. Oh, and by the way, the feds ALSO cannot do a or b or c or d or e...." And this places the "burden of law" ON the Bill of Rights to exhaustively enumerate what rights the states and people do have over and above the "everything else" granted them BY the enumerated powers clause. It thus makes the enumerated powers clause INSUFFICIENT to specify what the limitations on the feds really are and what the rights inhering in the states and people really are. Ambiguity is introduced where there was NONE before!
Prior to a bill of rights, the burden of law would be on the feds to say: "What we propose to do falls into our powers of x or y or z."
But with a bill of rights, the feds can instead say: "What we propose to do does not violate a or b or c or d...."
The federalist founders recognized that EXACTLY the situation we now find ourselves in with regard to the second amendment COULD arise with a bill of rights, yet it would be almost impossible to arise without a bill of rights.
So, the passage you quote is NOT saying what you take it to be saying. It is NOT saying: the right to bear arms was taken to not even BE among our rights; only a "compromise" got it placed among our rights in the first place.
The exact opposite is the case!
Without a bill of rights, the burden of law would be on the FEDS to explain exactly how gun control would fit into their enumerated powers. And there is no clear fit. So the presumption would be that THIS right would inhere in the states and people, and federal gun control would be almost impossible to get off the ground.
Now, of course, in our era virtually EVERYTHING has been taken by the Supreme Court to fit into the "interstate commerce" clause. So, that would surely be the take the feds would take to INCLUDE gun control among their enumerated powers. After all, asked and answered regarding Obamacare: "If government can do this, then what can government not do?" Answer: "Nothing. the Federal government can do ANYTHING!" Screw the Bill of Rights, because it says NOTHING about disallowing something like Obamacare. And with the interstate commerce clause "writ large" as it now is, that clause no longer has anything resembling the founders' intent for it!
But that is a digression. The point is that the bill of rights shifts the burden of law from the feds explaining how a proposed federal law fits among their enumerated powers... to a situation in which the feds need only claim that they do not violate the bill of rights with whatever they propose to do.
The point is that the anti-federalists wanted a VERY limited federal government, and by "unnecessary and even dangerous," they were being warned that a bill of rights would have the OPPOSITE effect they desired.
So, the reality is the opposite of your claim about that passage. Indeed your claim itself MAKES the very point about what the federalists were warning the anti-federalists WOULD result from including a bill of rights. BOTH sides wanted a limited federal government. It's a political philosophy issue to decide how best to achieve that; a bill of rights is the wrong way to go about it.
Federal gun control was something our founders would never have IMAGINED, as they did NOT have a "liberal" view of the enumerated powers granted to the feds, and the interstate commerce clause would NOT have been taken to include gun control! Thus, absent a bill of rights, there would not even have been the START of a debate on federal gun control as we now debate it! The instant response to such a proposition would have been: "Federal gun control fits NOWHERE in the enumerated powers. Thus no federal law like that can be constitutional."
The Bill of Rights really HAS proved "dangerous," because, just as was projected, it has thrust us into "rights debates" that would have been stillborn in the face of having ONLY the enumerated powers clause.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
The Brady Bill Toker. Look it up.
Uh,.... "waiting period"?
(what a putz!!)
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
In 1776 were not the people traitors?
Yes. That's why the conservatives of that time wanted to hang the Founding Fathers.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!