The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2012, 10:32 PM   #626
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
This makes zero sense. A war proved the citizenry had no right to arms? Interesting.
No. A war proved that the right to bear arms wasn't about arming the populace to overthrow the government.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 10:41 PM   #627
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Sorry but what you're saying would also lead to the conclusion that "Separation of Church and State" is a fictional construct of the modern court. It is found nowhere in the document, therefore it has no legal standing.
You are absolutely correct, and that is why Christianity is not the state religion, yet we still have "In God We Trust" on our currency. The Supreme Court cannot use Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists to prevent legislative bodies from putting "under God" at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance, much to my chagrin.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 10:56 PM   #628
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
It was an off-duty police officer working security and in uniform. As a former theater manager, it's a great idea to have traine law enforcement armed and in uniform. Not some yahoo with a CCL.
In an earlier thread you implied you feel that cops were likely to be killing people then making up storied they killed themselves. That shows you don't feel cops are somehow special. But now you seem to think only a cop should have gun, like that proves they are worthy. How can you have it both ways?

In one thread you make it sound like you don't trust police. But then in this one you are saying you only would trust police? And not some privately trained yahoo?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 11:01 PM   #629
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
In an earlier thread you implied you feel that cops were likely to be killing people then making up storied they killed themselves. That shows you don't feel cops are somehow special. But now you seem to think only a cop should have gun, like that proves they are worthy. How can you have it both ways?

In one thread you make it sound like you don't trust police. But then in this one you are saying you only would trust police? And not some privately trained yahoo?
Wow. If you got "Houghtam doesn't trust cops" from "How did someone somehow sneak a gun past a pat down and then magically shoot themselves in the back of the head with their non-dominant hand while handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser", then you have some serious reading comprehension problems.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 11:26 PM   #630
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Here is an excellent op-ed written by the federal judge (appointed by George W. Bush) who presided over the mass shooting in Tucson. He is making the case as a conservative for a strict federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

Excerpts from the piece:

Quote:
Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition...

...Reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them...

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder...

Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state...

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure...

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 05:25 AM   #631
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Here is an excellent op-ed written by the federal judge (appointed by George W. Bush) who presided over the mass shooting in Tucson. He is making the case as a conservative for a strict federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

Excerpts from the piece:
Pretty scary that there's a federal judge who strained to make a Fox News vs MSNBC argument but didn't bother himself with a second amendment argument.

Not even mentioning a judge writing opeds about where he thinks federal law should take us. He should probably recuse himself from any related cases going forward.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 05:31 AM   #632
BroncoFanatic
Roaming Coloradan
 
BroncoFanatic's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 474

Adopt-a-Bronco:
t-mobile girl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
No. A war proved that the right to bear arms wasn't about arming the populace to overthrow the government.
Translation: if the government can kill you, then they are clearly in the right.

Brilliant
BroncoFanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 05:47 AM   #633
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,400

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure...

This is where this judge is wrong. The Right has no interest in "sensible." All they care about is ideological purity. Results have nothing to do with it.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 06:17 AM   #634
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,260
Default

The 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It was an 18th century solution to an 18th century problem. Look at the plain language of the text: it's CLEAR that the intent of the amendent was to arm local militias, which was crucial to local defense at the time. After all, if there were some emergency, you couldn't wait for the Feds to chopper in help. Anyone who reads the 2nd amendent and concludes they have a personal right to own an assault rifle is simply seeing what they want to see.
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 06:21 AM   #635
jerseyguy4
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Here is an excellent op-ed written by the federal judge (appointed by George W. Bush) who presided over the mass shooting in Tucson. He is making the case as a conservative for a strict federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

Excerpts from the piece:
He says it very well
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 06:36 AM   #636
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,400

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It was an 18th century solution to an 18th century problem. Look at the plain language of the text: it's CLEAR that the intent of the amendent was to arm local militias, which was crucial to local defense at the time. After all, if there were some emergency, you couldn't wait for the Feds to chopper in help. Anyone who reads the 2nd amendent and concludes they have a personal right to own an assault rifle is simply seeing what they want to see.
Like I keep saying, in keeping with the originalism of Scalia, et al, they have the right to keep a musket.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 07:41 AM   #637
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoFanatic View Post
Translation: if the government can kill you, then they are clearly in the right.

Brilliant
I wonder why the southerners themselves coined the term the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy", and not "see ya'll next Saturday"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure...

This is where this judge is wrong. The Right has no interest in "sensible." All they care about is ideological purity. Results have nothing to do with it.
Roh, Roh, Roh...what could be more sensible than a childish, whining, take no prisoners attitude on being able to carry military grade weaponry in public, combined with undertones of open rebellion if I don't get my own way and a fundamental misunderstanding of military, political and constitutional history and function?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 08:20 AM   #638
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Pretty scary that there's a federal judge who strained to make a Fox News vs MSNBC argument but didn't bother himself with a second amendment argument.

Not even mentioning a judge writing opeds about where he thinks federal law should take us. He should probably recuse himself from any related cases going forward.
Sure, as long as you're going to ask Scalia to recuse himself from presiding over any of the myriad of issues he's made his opinions known about over the years.

Federal judges editorializing is not a new thing at all.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 08:49 AM   #639
Jetland
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

hope you all got to see the NRA presser today. They had a week to plan this and basically came up with a Colbert sketch.....just worthless
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 09:06 AM   #640
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,659

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Firearms Supplier Sells More Than Three Years Worth Of Magazines In Just Three Days

Well at least Obama finally found a way to boost the economy ........

Brownells, the world's largest supplier of firearms, has reportedly sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in just seventy-two hours.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn...nes-just-three
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 09:40 AM   #641
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
No. A war proved that the right to bear arms wasn't about arming the populace to overthrow the government.
Just because you have a right doesn't mean you're not accountable for how you exercise it. I keep hearing about how you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Using your logic, it would mean, yes, absolutely you can.

And let's not pretend that everything that happened in war, or even the Civil War suddenly necessarily has to apply to Constitutional precedent.

Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and tried Southerners by military tribunal. Is that all constitutional for everyone now too?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 09:43 AM   #642
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Sure, as long as you're going to ask Scalia to recuse himself from presiding over any of the myriad of issues he's made his opinions known about over the years.

Federal judges editorializing is not a new thing at all.
I've never heard him talk about what policies he thinks the federal government should specifically enact. He'll tell you what he believes the law and the Constitution "is" but not so much what he thinks it should be.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 10:12 AM   #643
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It was an 18th century solution to an 18th century problem. Look at the plain language of the text: it's CLEAR that the intent of the amendent was to arm local militias, which was crucial to local defense at the time. After all, if there were some emergency, you couldn't wait for the Feds to chopper in help.
Over and over again, it has to be said... the founding fathers would've been far more concerned about what happened when the Feds WERE "choppering in" than when they weren't.

Quote:
but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist #29

The second amendment was primarily a check and balance ON the government. That's not a role government can take over for itself.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 12-21-2012 at 10:16 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 10:28 AM   #644
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,400

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

NRA's LaPierre says it's basically everybody else's fault, from Hollywood, to video games.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...-violence?lite

Didn't even have to hear him speak to know what he was going to say. It's always somebody else's fault.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:11 AM   #645
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Over and over again, it has to be said... the founding fathers would've been far more concerned about what happened when the Feds WERE "choppering in" than when they weren't.



Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist #29

The second amendment was primarily a check and balance ON the government. That's not a role government can take over for itself.
First of all, we all need to move past this notion that when we refer to "The Founding Fathers" that we are talking about a bloc of people who all shared the same opinions on every topic. Of course, they weren't. What you just posted was the opinion of Hamilton and the Federalists only.

Second, even if the Founders did all share this same opinion on arms, it's merely another example of how the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. In the 18th century, it might well have been reasonable to think an armed citizenry could fight off the government. Unless you think citizens ought to have Apache helicopters and tanks, that isn't a remote possibility in the 21st century.

Last edited by BroncoInferno; 12-21-2012 at 11:14 AM..
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:24 AM   #646
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,613
Default

so the nra wants the evil gubmint to put police officers in schools now.bigger gubmint! what say you righties on this proposal?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 12:35 PM   #647
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
First of all, we all need to move past this notion that when we refer to "The Founding Fathers" that we are talking about a bloc of people who all shared the same opinions on every topic. Of course, they weren't. What you just posted was the opinion of Hamilton and the Federalists only.

Second, even if the Founders did all share this same opinion on arms, it's merely another example of how the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. In the 18th century, it might well have been reasonable to think an armed citizenry could fight off the government. Unless you think citizens ought to have Apache helicopters and tanks, that isn't a remote possibility in the 21st century.
That is exactly what people who hold an originalist view of the Constitution would have you believe. Justice Scalia is on record as saying the Second Amendment affords citizens the right to keep any bearable arms to fight off the government. When I mentioned this earlier, racist errand made an ignorant and useless comment about how you can't purchase rocket launchers. However, Scalia clearly did not say "purchasable" weaponry, he said bearable. If you can get your hands on it, in his opinion, you should be able to use it.

And yes, the framers of the Constitution were not some monolithic body who made decisions based on one will. How long did it take them to haggle about, write an ratify the document, again?

Besides which, regardless of their political writings on the fact, it's just folly to think that they intended to allow their citizenry to arm themselves for the sole purpose of being able to overthrow the very people who put the provision into the Constitution to begin with. Otherwise, why even bother putting down the Whiskey Rebellion?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 12:39 PM   #648
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
First of all, we all need to move past this notion that when we refer to "The Founding Fathers" that we are talking about a bloc of people who all shared the same opinions on every topic. Of course, they weren't. What you just posted was the opinion of Hamilton and the Federalists only.
Any legal question about the law's intent starts with the intent of those who authored and ratified the law. Basic stuff. I can quote the guy who wrote the amendment. I can quote numerous people responsible for its ratification. Can you quote me anyone saying anything resembling "Guys, guys... hear me. We have nothing to fear from Government! This gun stuff is all about securing us Venison and succulent Pheasant Breast, nothing more!"

Some more background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...cation_debates


Quote:
Second, even if the Founders did all share this same opinion on arms, it's merely another example of how the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. In the 18th century, it might well have been reasonable to think an armed citizenry could fight off the government. Unless you think citizens ought to have Apache helicopters and tanks, that isn't a remote possibility in the 21st century.
There was field artillery and other weaponry back in the day well beyond the means of the average agrarian. The citizenry had little chance going toe to toe with a standing field army. But standing field armies can't really control the people. Just as we've seen it hold true today in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't truly rule people with tanks and aircraft any more than you can control mosquitoes with a sledgehammer. It takes boots on the ground. And on American soil, those boots owned by the government shouldn't have effective immunity. This is what the authors of the Constitution believed. Nothing has changed.

And I'll go one step further to say that if one truly believes that the time for the second amendment has passed, one should only go so far as to support its fully democratic repeal or amendment. This support for restraining the Constitution by legislative increment and/or judicial fiat brings danger far beyond those just related to the 2nd Amendment. When you attack any of the Bill of Rights by illegitimate means, you're really undermining each and every one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 12:54 PM   #649
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,400

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
That is exactly what people who hold an originalist view of the Constitution would have you believe. Justice Scalia is on record as saying the Second Amendment affords citizens the right to keep any bearable arms to fight off the government. When I mentioned this earlier, racist errand made an ignorant and useless comment about how you can't purchase rocket launchers. However, Scalia clearly did not say "purchasable" weaponry, he said bearable. If you can get your hands on it, in his opinion, you should be able to use it.

And yes, the framers of the Constitution were not some monolithic body who made decisions based on one will. How long did it take them to haggle about, write an ratify the document, again?

Besides which, regardless of their political writings on the fact, it's just folly to think that they intended to allow their citizenry to arm themselves for the sole purpose of being able to overthrow the very people who put the provision into the Constitution to begin with. Otherwise, why even bother putting down the Whiskey Rebellion?
Not to mention that if they were all still alive 60 years later, half of them would have voted to secede.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 04:10 PM   #650
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

why even bring the Constitution up everyone knows it ain't getting changed. Congress can't even do a budget compromise/tax bill let alone change the Constitution. Best you can hope for is a ban on assault rilfes similar to the brady gun law I guess. 10 round clips and some stupid stuff about what the rifle looks like.

Have you guys seen that new rapid fire stock for AR's? It basically uses the gun momentum with a moving stock to slap fire the gun but pretty acccurate. Guys on youtube were unloading a 30 round clip in seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mZ4URGglWs

I guess it isn't as accurate as a real automatic but still pretty sick.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:15 AM.


Denver Broncos