Ask Me Help Desk - Fillibuster...Jim Crow in a suit?

Quote:

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, was passed in 2005. The law gave the gun industry immunity. It provided blanket protection from lawsuits alleging harm caused by the very weapons the industry produces.

Not true. "It gives immunity to the gun manufacturing industry from lawsuits that arise from criminal misuse of guns by third parties." It protects the gun industry from frivolous suits in the same way that a knife manufacturer should not be sued if a person used a knife to kill someone.

Most people want sensible adjustment to our institutions and structures especially when needed like gun control, criminal justice, police reform, voting rights, healthcare and the list goes on. Burns my butt when the right wants NO change, has NO suggestion for improvement, and blasts the suggestions of others for trying while denying everyone else rights they are so proud of claiming for themselves, and ignoring the nasty stuff people endure through no fault of their own.

I find it fascinating if not disgusting they also claim sole dominion of how those rights are defined without nuance and specificity that embraces any equity. Makes me think the whole point is right wing (Both conservatives and far right loonies) domination at the expense of ALL others.

Case in point...GUN reform!

NRA Tells Joe Biden It Is 'Ready to Fight' New Gun Control Measures (msn.com)

Quote:

As a textualist, how can you possibly read the Second Amendment as other than requiring a militia.

Because I know what the word 'militia' meant in 1787 . It meant able bodied men able to bear arms . Regulated did not mean state or national laws . Regulated back then meant well armed and disciplined . The 2nd amendment was designed by the authors of the Bill of Rights as a safeguard for the people against an oppressive government ;and in many cases against external and internal threats .Hostile European nations colonies were on the countries borders ;and there were threats internally from natives . That is what they meant when they said 'being necessary to the security of a free state ' . If you need collaborative words then all you need to do is look at Madison's Federalist #46 . He wrote of the potential need for the citizens to protect themselves from an overzealous, power-grabbing federal government. “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition [the larger federal government], more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” ....“Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

The fact that 'the people ' are completely outgunned by the national military is besides the point and ignores the intent of the authors.

' The right of the people ' goes back at least to the Declaration where the founders made it clear that rights are inherited and not granted by the government . 'The people ' were individuals . Not one right is granted to collective people ,the whole people ,groups of people like militias . Every Right in the Bill of Rights are statements about what the government cannot do to individuals . The militia part is secondary to the basic right to own guns.

re "living breathing "
Living breathing is nothing more than Orwellian word speak . Madison, when speaking to Congress on the Constitution, made it clear that the document was one of limited powers for the government, ;and that the document was explicit (not implicit in it's wording .

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Quote:

Because I know what the word 'militia' meant in 1787 . It meant able bodied men able to bear arms . Regulated did not mean state or national laws .

Exactly correct as anyone who has done evenly some remotely honest research would know.

This ain't 1787 and much has changed with language, laws, and meanings. Doesn't excuse storming the capitals or plotting overthrow of the government or kidnaping governors because you don't like policies or outcomes. It certainly doesn't mean a loony can shoot up a school, church, or mall, or movie and for gosh sakes spouting you're rights and not proposing real solutions to real dilemmas is preposterous, but if that's ALL you got.....?

Congress has a job to regulate both militias and guns as NO right is absolute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Because I know what the word 'militia' meant in 1787

That's not "textualism". It's "originalism". The two are not the same.

Quote:

It meant able bodied men able to bear arms

True.

Quote:

Regulated did not mean state or national laws

False.

Quote:

Regulated back then meant well armed and disciplined

False. That's not the meaning of regulated.

Quote:

If you need collaborative words then all you need to do is look at Madison's Federalist #46

Then why didn't he put that into the Constitution?

Quote:

The fact that 'the people ' are completely outgunned by the national military is besides the point

Sez you.

Quote:

and ignores the intent of the authors.

Originalism - not textualism!

Quote:

the founders made it clear that rights are inherited and not granted by the government

Then why do you insist on the Second Amendment granting the right to bear arms?

Quote:

'The people ' were individuals . Not one right is granted to collective people ,the whole people ,groups of people like militias .

"We the people"....? You're playing semantics here.

Quote:

The militia part is secondary to the basic right to own guns.

As stated in the amendment, the militia part precedes the right to bear arms. That can't be more obvious.

Quote:

re "living breathing " Living breathing is nothing more than Orwellian word speak

For cryin' out loud, that's not "Orwellian word speak". It's a simple figure of speech, recognized by anyone.

Quote:

Madison ..... made it clear that the document .... was explicit (not implicit in it's wording

Your argument has always been an implicit one. The explicit argument sees the militia (a collective noun, btw) as an organized group - not separate individuals.

Quote:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

The question for you is the one asked by Alice.

Quote:

Originalism - not textualism!

distinction without a difference. If the meaning of the words is clear, the judge need go no further. If they are ambiguous, the judge discerns their meaning using the meaning of the words as they were defined at the time of the authorship .

Quote:

Regulated back then meant well armed and disciplined

False. That's not the meaning of regulated.

That was indeed the meaning as the authors saw it . It didn't mean the state was controlling the militia .Militias were mobilized for local security and to be a check on the government military power . Regulated militia meant that it was was prepared to do its duty. It would not be prepared if the people did not have a right to arm themselves .

Quote:

If you need collaborative words then all you need to do is look at Madison's Federalist #46
Then why didn't he put that into the Constitution?

Because to Madison and the framers ,rights were self evident .They did not think there was a need to spell out rights granted by God (and not given by the government ) . It was only during the ratification debates (when the Federalist Papers were written) that it became clear that to pass the Constitution ,a spelled out bill or rights would be necessary.

Quote:

Regulated militia meant that it was was prepared to do its duty. It would not be prepared if the people did not have a right to arm themselves .

Obviously true.

The issue is not second amendment rights, but protecting the public from the homicidal loonies and criminals!

Tal, you are right but they will never see it

It is just as much about rights as security .The criminals get guns illegally . The knee jerk reactions tend to punish the innocent and deprive them of rights in the guise of protecting them . People who think the government is the beginning and end all tend to think that way .

Quote:

The criminals get guns illegally . The knee jerk reactions tend to punish the innocent and deprive them of rights in the guise of protecting them .

Exactly right. Liberals want to deprive criminals of guns by taking guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is just as much about rights as security .The criminals get guns illegally . The knee jerk reactions tend to punish the innocent and deprive them of rights in the guise of protecting them . People who think the government is the beginning and end all tend to think that way .

How? Or is this your excuse to do nothing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Exactly right. Liberals want to deprive criminals of guns by taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding.

No solution from you either?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

distinction without a difference.

Not so. Look up the terms.

Quote:

If they are ambiguous, the judge discerns their meaning using the meaning of the words as they were defined at the time of the authorship

"Arms" meant muskets at the time of authorship. Do you seriously contend arms has the same meaning today?

Quote:

Militias were mobilized for local security and to be a check on the government military power

You left out also being a defense against foreign powers.

Quote:

Regulated militia meant that it was was prepared to do its duty. It would not be prepared if the people did not have a right to arm themselves

Yes, but you put the cart before the horse. In order to do its duty, citizens were trained and organized (regulated) by the authorities (other appointed or elected citizens).

Quote:

They did not think there was a need to spell out rights granted by God (and not given by the government )

The Second Amendment is a right granted by God? I haven't heard that one before. What about authority being derived from the consent of the governed?

Quote:

It was only during the ratification debates (when the Federalist Papers were written) that it became clear that to pass the Constitution ,a spelled out bill or rights would be necessary.

Otherwise, the Bill of Rights would have been recognized anyway because it was granted by God? Excuse me if I'm not understanding you. Your logic is not always easy to follow.

what part of 'that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ' don't you understand ? Yes the 2nd amendment is endowed by God because self defense is an unalienable right .

Quote:

What about authority being derived from the consent of the governed?

Madison answered that in Federalist 51 . paraphrase ... if men were angels no government would be necessary . Jefferson also answered that in the Declaration when he wrote immediately after the 'consent of governed ' quote that when government becomes the enemies of rights then the governed have the right to (dissolve) the relationship...to take up arms to remove the government . The anti-tyranny justification for the 2nd amendment is real.

Scalia called his judicial approach to the Constitution “originalism” or “textualism”. It is very similar as opposed to the concept that the constitution can be molded like putty to justify any progressive agenda as being constitutional . The classic living breathing nonsense is in the Griswald right to privacy that begat Roe v Wade . It was argued that the Bill of Rights created "emanations" of protection that created "penumbras" where rights could still be covered even if not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution A penumbra is the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot–and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. “Emanation” is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay–it also means “an emission.” In other words ,the words mean whatever the interpreter chooses what they mean .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

,the words mean whatever the interpreter chooses what they mean .

That is certainly the case in the interpretation of the US constitution

Quote:

That is certainly the case in the interpretation of the US constitution

if the words have any meaning at all it is in the original textual construct. People like Tal dismiss the relevance of the thoughts behind the words of some "ancient " white guys from the 18th century . But if you don't even try to discern what the Framers meant when they wrote the constitution then why have a constitution as the basis of law to begin with ? The words to the libs are pliable . They use them if they can advance an agenda. If not they are reinterpreted or dismissed.

Quote:

The words to the libs are pliable . They use them if they can advance an agenda. If not they are reinterpreted or dismissed.

Exactly correct. I don't know of any approach more dangerous to truth and the rule of law than that one. It is the same approach used in interpreting the Bible. If I don't like what i'm reading, then I'll imagine it means something other than what it says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

what part of 'that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ' don't you understand ? Yes the 2nd amendment is endowed by God because self defense is an unalienable right .

Madison answered that in Federalist 51 . paraphrase ... if men were angels no government would be necessary . Jefferson also answered that in the Declaration when he wrote immediately after the 'consent of governed ' quote that when government becomes the enemies of rights then the governed have the right to (dissolve) the relationship...to take up arms to remove the government . The anti-tyranny justification for the 2nd amendment is real.

That's what the elections are about Tom, because who wants a shooting war in America again? Didn't we learn our lesson? So drop the government tyranny crap and rightwing shenanigans and lies and count ALL the votes. Maybe if you guys had better ideas instead of tricks and traps based on fear and hate and ego tripping we could actually govern for the good of EVERYBODY and not just the select few.

You upgrade/update your puter don't you? The same applies to ideas. At least be as smart as the homicidal loonies and criminals plaguing the land. Why be stuck in the past? The founders had their day, and now its ours!

250 years means nothing Tal, nostalgia rules

Just ignore the law. Play it by ear!

Is this now the slogan of liberal dems? If so, then don't be shocked where it takes you.

laws should change with the times, isn't this what the demonrats want?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Just ignore the law. Play it by ear!

Is this now the slogan of liberal dems? If so, then don't be shocked where it takes you.

Nobody says ignore the law, just it's a question of the intent of repubs making and changing the law, and worse LYING about it when everybody knows it goes back to the shenanigans after the south was defeated.

Quote:

laws should change with the times, isn't this what the demonrats want?

There is a great difference between changing the law and ignoring it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

You upgrade/update your puter don't you? The same applies to ideas. At least be as smart as the homicidal loonies and criminals plaguing the land. Why be stuck in the past? The founders had their day, and now its ours!

Based on common sense rather than originalism or textualism, this is most succinct and very to the point.

The Republicans/Conservatives/right-wing cannot even see what was most obvious to the world - that the Jan 6 mob was an insurrectionary mob dedicated to the overthrow of the government by reversing the presidential election. Some Republicans - Constitutionalists all - even supported the insurrection by not condemning it.

Quote:

see what was most obvious to the world -insurrectionary mob dedicated to the overthrow of the government

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...9&&FORM=VDRVRV

Yup, Dedicated Mob the World has ever seen!

somei ideas are ageless and don't need upgrading . But I get the Dem . If they can't pass the laws they want under existing rules ;change the rules .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

somei ideas are ageless and don't need upgrading

True enough, the key word being "some".

Some morals (morality) in the past are immoral today.

Some things that were immoral are now moral.

Change is inevitable.

True moral values don't change. Our perceptions of them might, but not the values themselves. That idea of permanence was the foundation of the D of I. "Endowed by their Creator"

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

True moral values don't change. Our perceptions of them might, but not the values themselves.

What is that supposed to mean?

Quote:

That idea of permanence was the foundation of the D of I. "Endowed by their Creator"

Do you mean the same guy who wrote "all men are created equal" while owning human beings as slaves and raping Sally Hemmings for years? That guy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

somei ideas are ageless and don't need upgrading . But I get the Dem . If they can't pass the laws they want under existing rules ;change the rules .

Like voter suppression laws after the biggest fraud free election in our history? Like SCOTUS picks? Yeah I get repubs.

You holler woke and cancel culture while you run amok for years woking and cancelling folks at will! Yeah I get repubs! It's okay when you do it, but can't stand to have it done to you.

What is that supposed to mean? Well, just use your second comment as an example. Is rape always wrong, or might that evolve over time to become merely inconvenient? In my view it is always wrong due to the view of our Creator. True moral values are timeless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well, just use your second comment as an example. Is rape always wrong, or might that evolve over time to become merely inconvenient?

Why do you think rape might evolve over time to be merely inconvenient?

Quote:

In my view it is always wrong due to the view of our Creator.

Your creator commanded us not to covet our neighbor's goods. Coveting is what drives the consumer economy. Is it immoral?

Quote:

True moral values are timeless.

Can you tell us what the true timeless moral values are? I'm not denying there are some, but how many - or what are they?

Quote:

Why do you think rape might evolve over time to be merely inconvenient?

You missed the point. If "change is inevitable" in morality, then rape cannot be looked upon as a fixed moral standard. If it is fixed, then change is not only not inevitable, it is impossible.

Quote:

Your creator commanded us not to covet our neighbor's goods. Coveting is what drives the consumer economy. Is it immoral?

The Bible does not prohibit desiring to possess something (coveting). It prohibits desiring to possess what belongs to someone else. " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his , nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." So it's fine to desire a wife, but not your neighbor's wife. Commercial commerce would not fall generally under that category.

Quote:

Can you tell us what the true timeless moral values are? I'm not denying there are some, but how many - or what are they?

There is no point in talking about WHAT they are until it can first be established that they DO exist. Once that is accepted, then your question of "what they are" becomes a big one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You missed the point. If "change is inevitable" in morality, then rape cannot be looked upon as a fixed moral standard. If it is fixed, then change is not only not inevitable, it is impossible.

You didn't answer the question. It was - Why do you think rape might evolve over time to be merely inconvenient? (Even if change is inevitable? Not to obscure the question, but change being inevitable does not mean every single thing is changeable).

Quote:

The Bible does not prohibit desiring to possess something (coveting). It prohibits desiring to possess what belongs to someone else. " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his , nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." So it's fine to desire a wife, but not your neighbor's wife. Commercial commerce would not fall generally under that category.

You got me on this one.

Quote:

There is no point in talking about WHAT they are until it can first be established that they DO exist.

I don't agree with this one. You can talk about anything under the sun. Also, but not only, because talking about what they are would help to establish in the first place just what they are. But the more important point is the first one.

Quote:

Once that is accepted, then your question of "what they are" becomes a big one.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Examining "what they are" necessarily precedes acceptance.

Since I don’t believe change in true morality is “inevitable”, then I don’t think rape should subject to change.

Absolutely not. Accepting that morality is fixed must be established before deciding what that involves. The corral must be built before buying the ponies.

the ponies just jump the fence, because they love freedom, freedom and morality can't live side by side in the same corral