HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TPaine7 » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Apr 12, 2008, 03:28 PM
Number of posts: 4,286

Journal Archives

Yawn... Apparently some specially approved blogs are ok as sources.

This from a guy who whined on and on about "blogs" while having a Supreme Court ruling, a Yale professor, a CalTech professor and former clerk to Sandra Day O'Conner, Alan Dershowitz and a Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment cited as sources.

I guess it would be a waste of time to look for anything approaching principle to explain why some blogs are ok; apparently it has something to do with whether they support the agenda.

So Rahm is the only one whining and I was talking about Rahm Immanuel's comment since that is the

only possibility?

And naturally, if I don't address Rahm and only Rahm, I am a gun fanatic?


Chicago needs to deal with its gang and racism problem, among others. I've been to Chicago and I know people who lived there. The woman in the couple was culture shocked by the relations between races in more normal America when she left Chicago in adulthood. If Chicago could clean up their hellhole of a city and get rid of the rampant gangs, corruption, authoritarianism, racism, etc., guns would be a non-issue.

Chicago can no more legitimately dictate laws throughout the state to control guns in Chicago than the US can legitimately dictate laws in Latin America and Mexico to control drugs here. Since you allegedly oppose American exceptionalism, you should get that.

It always amazes me how principle-free gun control fanatics are. Unprincipled lunatic anti-gun mayors, for example, fiercely fight for "home rule" special laws for their cities that contrast with general state law, but they don't hesitate to try to impose their will on the rest of the state, or even the nation.

Scalia? Scalia?!! I showed you, very clearly, that this has nothing to do with Scalia

As I showed you clearly here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721025#post74 ) the meaning of the Constitution was quite clear before Scalia was born.

Have you even read and considered the history I've repeatedly cited since you've been posting, like one of my favorite posts to link ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=300206&mesg_id=300331 )? Have you considered the original sources I cite from long before Scalia's birth?

At this point, pretending that this has anything to do with Scalia is simply lying. So no, the way I know that you don't care about what the Constitution says has nothing to do with Scalia; It's based solidly on what you have said:

But the underlying philosophical issues don't depend on who happens to be sitting on the supreme court, or even what it says in the constitution. And this always trips up the pro-gunners. Because part of pro-gunner indoctrination involves memorizing long lists of talking points about the second amendment. But when asked to actually give a philosophical justification for why gun ownership should be considered a fundamental civil right, alongside things like free speech and fair trials, beyond "becuz its in da constatooshun", you just get blank stares.

At the time of the BOR, standing armies vs militias was a significant issue (along with peacetime quartering of troops in private homes), so it is not difficult to see why RKBA was elevated to the level of a constitutionally protected right. But, today, things are different, of course, and militias and quartering of troops are non-issues. The third amendment is basically obsolete, as would the second be if not for right-wing gun extremists who have managed to twist 2A into a requirement that the US must endure levels of gun violence and homicide that the rest of the civilized world would find completely intolerable.

But, regardless of what the framers thought, or how Scalia decides to interpret it, the most important point to me is that, gun ownership, in today's world, has nothing to do with maintaining and participating in a functioning democracy or a free civil society. A gun is an object, which can be both useful and dangerous, and it should be regulated as such, without all the hyperbolic talk of "freedom" and "tyranny". As I pointed, there are plenty of free, prosperous, democracies in the world with rational gun laws (almost all of them, in fact), and the people in places like the UK and Canada would simply laugh if you suggest that thousands of them should die every year for the sake of "gun rights".


Your own words show clearly that you have no interest in what the Constitution says; you only care about your own personal philosophy and what you think the law should be. You don't take a principled position for changing the Constitution, no you think the parts that you imagine to be "obsolete" should just be ignored.

To see the fallacy of your "logic" one only has to look at your view of the Third Amendment, which you imagine to be obsolete because it is not currently being violated. If the Third Amendment is obsolete, and therefore can be ignored, then government may freely quarter soldiers in our homes during time of peace.

So all the government has to do to invalidate any Amendment in the Bill of Rights is to strictly obey it. Then, once the amendment is obsolete, government may freely violate it! That is the depth of your constitutional thinking.

You don't care about what the Constitution says--when it varies from your personal policy preferences--because you say so in so many words. You don't care about what the Constitution says because when you are shown, in detail, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments mean that your interpretation is historically impossible and that it is clearly refuted by the text of the Constitution itself, you do not bother to investigate the facts and learn, or even to make the most feeble attempt to argue, but continue making your inane arguments as if they are still valid.

If you're looking for good scholarship about the Second Amendment (and the Fourteenth) I would start

with this ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Bill-Rights-Creation-Reconstruction/dp/0300082770/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1345761452&sr=8-2&keywords=Akil+Amar ).

Another book, which gathers all of the Supreme Court gun cases (up until 2003) is this one (http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Cases-David-Kopel/dp/1889632058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345761627&sr=8-1&keywords=supreme+court+gun+cases ).

To be fair, the authors of this second book could be considered activists and have a definite position on the Second Amendment, some would say bias. I suggest checking the veracity of their summaries by looking up the full opinions on findlaw.com or an academic site (for the opinions they don't quote in full).

I quote a little of the history of gun rights and cite those books as well as original sources in this post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=300206&mesg_id=300331 ).

See also ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255387#post32 ) and ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255387#post38 ).

The Right to Bear Claws, A Parable

Once there was a country called Land of Free (and nicknamed Home of Brave). It had not always been very free or brave—it had enslaved some, locked others in camps because of their nationality and supported the False Patriotism Law—but those are other stories.

When much of the country had  been settled, a wise Prime Minister led his country to set aside preserves to protect some of the animals who had been driven nearly to extinction, as well as to prevent the cutting of some of the most majestic trees and the paving and settling of some of the most glorious scenery.

Almost all of the citizens agreed with Prime Minister Parkman: the beauty and wildness of the land deserved to be protected, and even the fiercest and most dangerous animals deserved some sanctuary.

The biggest and most popular park in Land of Free was Yellowrock. And the favorite animals were the bears. They were also the most dangerous.

Sure, stupid people were killed or hurt attempting to pet young buffalo or to get closeup pictures of moose, but bears actively sought out human food. They rummaged through garbage cans and aggressively begged for food. They peeled the roofs of cars to get at food. They raided campsites.

In spite of the best efforts of the Park Patrol, it was impossible to keep people and bears apart. Bears, especially mother bears who needed to feed cubs, were very dangerous. The sows tried to keep their cubs from human contact, but they would forage for food alone when the cubs slept.

Officer Controll was very concerned. Gunter—that was his first name—set out to stop the mother bears from hurting people. When some sleeping people were killed because a sow peeled the roof of their car to get to their food, he hatched a plan.

Gunter decided to declaw Yellowrock's sows. Actually, he decided to declaw all adult bears, but it turned out that he almost never caught a bruin. The males were more reclusive, and since they only had one mouth to feed they could afford to forage mostly in remote areas.

Gunter's plan was simple. He patrolled the less remote areas of the park and shot bears with a tranquilizer gun. He then surgically removed their claws.

At first Gunter's conscience worried him. Yellowrock's Charter said that the animals were to be allowed to roam, forage and fend for themselves naturally and that their right to do so was not to be interfered with. By declawing bears, mostly sows, he was definitely interfering.

He comforted himself that he was serving a higher purpose.

All was well until other Park Patrol Officers began to notice something. Cubs were disappearing and sows were being found dead. And declawed.

They investigated and caught Gunter red-handed, with a partially declawed sow. "Gunter," asked the Senior Officer, "what would possess you to do this? Don't you realize that sows need their claws to dig for roots, to climb trees and to fight off bruins? Bruins are realizing that some sows are defenseless, and they are more prone to attack sows when they range farther from the people areas."

"They also use their claws to peel roofs and kill people" answered Gunter.

"True, that sometimes happens, but the sows deserve survival tools" answered Senior Officer Bill Wright. "You have violated Yellowrock's Charter, you have left sows and cubs utterly defenseless. It is not for you to judge and overrule the Charter, you are an officer of the Charter. Or you were."

"You're fired."

Gunter was very angry. He hired a lawyer and filed suit. If you were one of the Justices; how would you rule?
Go to Page: 1