Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #241

    Apr 10, 2021, 07:19 AM
    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.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #242

    Apr 10, 2021, 09:51 AM
    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)
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #243

    Apr 10, 2021, 11:26 AM
    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.”
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #244

    Apr 10, 2021, 12:21 PM
    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.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #245

    Apr 10, 2021, 03:24 PM
    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.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #246

    Apr 10, 2021, 06:59 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Because I know what the word 'militia' meant in 1787
    That's not "textualism". It's "originalism". The two are not the same.

    It meant able bodied men able to bear arms
    True.

    Regulated did not mean state or national laws
    False.

    Regulated back then meant well armed and disciplined
    False. That's not the meaning of regulated.

    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?

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

    and ignores the intent of the authors.
    Originalism - not textualism!

    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?

    '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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    “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.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #247

    Apr 11, 2021, 03:31 AM
    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 .

    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 .
    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.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #248

    Apr 11, 2021, 04:41 AM
    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.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #249

    Apr 11, 2021, 05:12 AM
    The issue is not second amendment rights, but protecting the public from the homicidal loonies and criminals!
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #250

    Apr 11, 2021, 05:28 AM
    Tal, you are right but they will never see it
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #251

    Apr 11, 2021, 06:27 AM
    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 .
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #252

    Apr 11, 2021, 07:31 AM
    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.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #253

    Apr 11, 2021, 09:20 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    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?
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #254

    Apr 11, 2021, 09:26 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    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?
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #255

    Apr 11, 2021, 10:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    distinction without a difference.
    Not so. Look up the terms.

    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?

    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.

    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).

    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?

    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.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #256

    Apr 11, 2021, 12:47 PM
    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 .

    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.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #257

    Apr 11, 2021, 02:28 PM
    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 .
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #258

    Apr 11, 2021, 02:58 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    ,the words mean whatever the interpreter chooses what they mean .
    That is certainly the case in the interpretation of the US constitution
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #259

    Apr 11, 2021, 03:33 PM
    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.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #260

    Apr 11, 2021, 04:25 PM
    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.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Wolf and Crow [ 1 Answers ]

In my childhood I watched a movie which had a man who turned into a wolf and a woman who turned into a crow and they both tend to turn into these animals at different times. There was a mere second when they both sea each other in human form at the same time and somehow they were supposed to stay...

How does one respond to a quiet title suit where original owner in suit is deceased [ 7 Answers ]

Original owner named in suit and his heir to the small land lot (low value) are deceased. There have been 3 more owners since.

Fillibuster Proof Senate? [ 4 Answers ]

Hello: Obama looks like he's going to be swept into office by a landslide. There is a very good chance that the Dems will wind up with 60 senate seats - meaning they can do anything they want, and the Republicans can't do a thing about it. Of course, they'll keep the house... What do...

Doing a crow pose [ 3 Answers ]

Is there a certain way to doing a crow pose or do I need to have perfect upperbody/ ab strength? This is a crow pose if you all don't know what the heck I'm talking about. http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Kc2S631_aUuuEM:http://colveyco.com/gallery-annex/yoga/plate-110.jpg

Jim crow [ 1 Answers ]

To what does the term "Jim Crow" refer?


View more questions Search