House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Stroheim;53162780]Soccer mom/Facebook Filter democrats to leave and never come back to the legislative table. What kind of shit is this? It blocks [B]nearly EVERY SINGLE FIREARM COMPANY[/B], from ArmaLite to Uzi. It's both ridiculous and ludicrous. It's like they don't even want a bill to get passed at all. And they wonder why people are trying make 3d printed guns a legal thing now.[/QUOTE] 3d printed guns are already legal

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166716]SCOTUS is not really interested in actually interpreting the Constitution, regardless of their mission statement. If they were, decisions would be objective and made once - instead rolling changes are made whenever it's convenient for SCOTUS' political leanings of the time, be that left or right.[/QUOTE] If I'm reading you right, then basically you're saying that the Constitution is irrelevant now? I can't reconcile you stating that while also stating 'we can't do anything about this because the Constitution doesn't allow it'. And who would stand against it if, as you say, the SCOTUS has abandoned its duty and offices -- which it by all accounts and constant rulings and hearings over constitutional matters, has not? [quote]Where have I said my argument is Constitutionally founded? I don't use "but 2A" as a defense. I talk hard numbers and critical thinking. 2A would be a good platform, but if it actually meant anything to legislators, an AWB would not be up for consideration at all.[/quote] Is this satire? Your argument has made constant reference to the Constitution as 'reasons why we can not do this'. 'Critical thinking' is not a pretext on which an argument can be founded if we are to argue on what is and is not legislatively possible. Instead, we would be arguing over legislation and constitutionality -- both of which you seem to be saying are irrelevant here? Your argument, after all, was this: [quote]But the thing is, that goes against the current Constitution. Which means to have a Constitutionally protected licensing system, you'd have to change the Constitution.[/quote] Am I to interpret that argument as 'not Constitutionally founded' when you say it 'goes against the current Constitution'? How does that make sense?

I use the Constitution as a reference for what things are supposedly intended to be, but I don't formulate an argument on "that's unconstitutional." I'm saying "Constitutionally protected" is an empty phrase when the Constitution obviously doesn't mean anything to lawmakers.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166732]I use the Constitution as a reference for what things were intended to be, but I don't formulate an argument on "that's unconstitutional."[/QUOTE] But you did exactly that, though. What other things are you referencing to state that we would have to amend the Constitution to provide for this system while at the same time arguing that it's 'not Constitutional'?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166734]But you did exactly that, though.[/QUOTE] Where? Because what I've been saying the whole time is that the Constitution is already ignored and sidelined, so what it actually intends is pretty meaningless.

The purpose of the 2A is to protect citizen's rights from the federal government. Letting said federal government run a licensing program, or any kind of ban, is equivalent to letting a thief run a bank.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166737]Where?[/QUOTE] Directly here: [quote]But the thing is, that goes against the current Constitution. Which means to have a Constitutionally protected licensing system, you'd have to change the Constitution.[/quote] [quote=Emperor Scorpius II]The purpose of the 2A is to protect citizen's rights from the federal government. Letting said federal government run a licensing program, or any kind of ban, is equivalent to letting a thief run a bank.[/quote] That's a bit of a reversal from the text of the Constitution, then. The amendment in question caveats its whole supposition on considerations towards a well regulated militia. To begin with, that presumes that whoever is making the judgment on whether or not that militia is well regulated is left to the federal government to begin with. It was nonetheless the framers' intent for the 2A to be written that way and, arguably, it is set up to provide the caveat to let citizens have weapons where otherwise they may not. After all, the Constitution states that it does not enumerate all rights specifically -- so in cases where it has specifically enumerated those rights, it is intended for those enumerations to be seen as limitations made as a compromise between citizen and state to protect the citizen. Which means in this case, the 2A [I]is[/I] the protection from the federal government - not to protect their rights from the government to bear arms but rather to demonstrate in what ways they have a right to bear arms. It's less like letting a thief run a bank and more like stating 'every man should have access to a sword -- so long as he is held accountable for that sword and serves a well-regulated, lawful, militia'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166742]Directly here:[/QUOTE] Did you read my whole post? Because what I'm saying is that proposing something be added to the Constitution is pointless because changing the Constitution makes "it's unchangeable because it's in the Constitution" an empty assurance, especially when we already don't really stick to a literalist interpretation of the Constitution... which is mostly for the better... [editline]28th February 2018[/editline] Furthermore, you can't form a militia if nobody has guns, and limiting guns to existing militias is not something you want to do because those people are certifiably CRAZY. 2A IS intended to protect the right of any citizen to own a gun, because if they didn't have guns, they couldn't form militias.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166748]Did you read my whole post? Because what I'm saying is that proposing something be added to the Constitution is pointless because changing the Constitution makes "it's unchangeable because it's in the Constitution" an empty assurance, especially when we already don't really stick to a literalist interpretation of the Constitution... which is mostly for the better...[/QUOTE] That's not what you wrote though. You were more stating that it was 'due to the Constitution' that we couldn't engage such a system wherein I demonstrated that it appears to be well within the bounds of the Constitution in question. Specifically, that nothing needs be added or removed because, as-written, the Constitutional framework already allows for such a system to exist to begin with and doesn't 'make the Constitution meaningless or an empty assurance'. [quote]Furthermore, you can't form a militia if nobody has guns, and limiting guns to existing militias is not something you want to do because those people are certifiably CRAZY. 2A IS intended to protect the right of any citizen to own a gun, because if they didn't have guns, they couldn't form militias.[/quote] This is not a 'which came first: chicken or egg' situation. The Constitution makes no preponderance on when the militia must be established. To be fully constitutional, I imagine that all a militia need do is prove it is well organized and then it may seek and obtain arms by the second amendment. Of course militias may form without arms - else the Nightwatch from the era of the Constitution would be unconstitutional, which doesn't make any sense at all. They were armed with clubs, mainly, but they are nonetheless 'arms'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166757]That's not what you wrote though. You were more stating that it was 'due to the Constitution' that we couldn't engage such a system wherein I demonstrated that it appears to be well within the bounds of the Constitution in question. Specifically, that nothing needs be added or removed because, as-written, the Constitutional framework already allows for such a system to exist to begin with and doesn't 'make the Constitution meaningless or an empty assurance'.[/QUOTE] No, I didn't say the Constitution says you can't amend the Constitution, I said the fact that adding something that isn't in the Constitution right now requires you to change the Constitution means that "you can't change it because it's in the Constitution" is very optimistic at best.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166765]No, I didn't say the Constitution says you can't amend the Constitution, I said the fact that adding something that isn't in the Constitution right now requires you to change the Constitution means that "you can't change it because it's in the Constitution" is very optimistic at best.[/QUOTE] I'm having a lot of difficulty following this logic. Am I interpreting your statement correctly? We want to add a licensing system, which appears in the scope of the Constitution with no changes being necessary to do so, which means said system would be 'constitutional'. Yet, nonetheless, there will be arguments seriously brought that it can't be changed because someone would argue 'that that is against the constitution due to my interpretation of it'? And those arguments, therefore, would require you to change the Constitution itself in order to accommodate for that argument before you would be able to implement such a system despite the system being legally workable from the get-go despite objections? Presumably because it is 'very optimistic' to assume that the citizens would not immediately rebel at the mere suggestion of it, despite it not only being constitutional but in fact in step with the considerations obviously built in to and the fact that this system naturally slides in with the protections that they are rebelling over?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166742]Directly here: That's a bit of a reversal from the text of the Constitution, then. The amendment in question caveats its whole supposition on considerations towards a well regulated militia. To begin with, that presumes that whoever is making the judgment on whether or not that militia is well regulated is left to the federal government to begin with. It was nonetheless the framers' intent for the 2A to be written that way and, arguably, it is set up to provide the caveat to let citizens have weapons where otherwise they may not. After all, the Constitution states that it does not enumerate all rights specifically -- so in cases where it has specifically enumerated those rights, it is intended for those enumerations to be seen as limitations made as a compromise between citizen and state to protect the citizen. Which means in this case, the 2A [I]is[/I] the protection from the federal government - not to protect their rights from the government to bear arms but rather to demonstrate in what ways they have a right to bear arms. It's less like letting a thief run a bank and more like stating 'every man should have access to a sword -- so long as he is held accountable for that sword and serves a well-regulated, lawful, militia'.[/QUOTE] You do realize that the framers of the Constitution wrote about the document they made and explanations of parts of it, right? There is more to read than just the 2A and go "I don't know what they meant, I guess it must mean this" when there are a plethora of Federalist Papers written by James Madison on it. In Fed #46, he literally discusses that the purpose of the 2A is to arm the citizens of the country in the event of the federal government using a standing army to suppress the states and people.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53166780]You do realize that the framers of the Constitution wrote about the document they made and explanations of parts of it, right? There is more to read than just the 2A and go "I don't know what they meant, I guess it must mean this" when there are a plethora of Federalist Papers written by James Madison on it. In Fed #46, he literally discusses that the purpose of the 2A is to arm the citizens of the country in the event of the federal government using a standing army to suppress the states and people.[/QUOTE] And said citizens would, presumably, be a united militia fighting against the government in a time of effective war. It doesn't sound like they intended it to be for peacetime, wherein the requirements appear to be more stringent as you couldn't argue that they're 'a part of a militia' outside of them being a part of a militia, right? (Note by 'peacetime' and 'wartime' I mean the considerations of the citizens; relationship with their government as otherwise they wouldn't really bear much sense)

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166757]This is not a 'which came first: chicken or egg' situation. The Constitution makes no preponderance on when the militia must be established. To be fully constitutional, I imagine that all a militia need do is prove it is well organized and then it may seek and obtain arms by the second amendment. Of course militias may form without arms - else the Nightwatch from the era of the Constitution would be unconstitutional, which doesn't make any sense at all. They were armed with clubs, mainly, but they are nonetheless 'arms'.[/QUOTE] Oh, it's [I]this[/I] argument. Clearly by "arms to resist government tyranny" they meant "heavy sticks and the odd butcher knife."

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166791]Oh, it's [I]this[/I] argument. Clearly by "arms to resist government tyranny" they meant "heavy sticks and the odd butcher knife."[/QUOTE] 'Arms' is specifically neutral. It would account for heavy sticks, the odd butcher knife, and firearms inclusively. Arms is, to use a modern wording, 'weapons'. As I was saying, if the Nightwatch often carried arms and the framers would've considered them in the writing of the constitution. They would likely be considered a form of 'organized militia' as, though being civilian, they are nonetheless a form of armed and organized militia which therefore the Constitution would protect the rights to bear arms for.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166775]I'm having a lot of difficulty following this logic. Am I interpreting your statement correctly? We want to add a licensing system, which appears in the scope of the Constitution with no changes being necessary to do so, which means said system would be 'constitutional'. Yet, nonetheless, there will be arguments seriously brought that it can't be changed because someone would argue 'that that is against the constitution due to my interpretation of it'? And those arguments, therefore, would require you to change the Constitution itself in order to accommodate for that argument before you would be able to implement such a system despite the system being legally workable from the get-go despite objections? Presumably because it is 'very optimistic' to assume that the citizens would not immediately rebel at the mere suggestion of it, despite it not only being constitutional but in fact in step with the considerations obviously built in to and the fact that this system naturally slides in with the protections that they are rebelling over?[/QUOTE] You can't add a licensing system with Constitutional protections without editing the Constitution. The purpose of adding it to the Constitution is to assure gun owners that it can't be used against them. However, the very act of changing the Constitution to ADD that protection means that it can be edited again, which renders the idea of Constitutional protection null to begin with. Secondarily, you want to argue with me about what the amendment means. What it means is not the same thing as what I think is right. The meaning of the amendment is very clear, but not only is it already not adhered to, but concepts of militias and direct parity in armament with the government are obviously not compatible with 21st century ideas and have since been overridden on grounds of common sense. Hence, I don't argue on the basis of Constitutionality on the first place, but if you want to claim it means something that it doesn't, I'm going to correct you.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166795]You can't add a licensing system with Constitutional protections without editing the Constitution. The purpose of adding it to the Constitution is to assure gun owners that it can't be used against them. However, the very act of changing the Constitution to ADD that protection means that it can be edited again, which renders the idea of Constitutional protection null to begin with. Secondarily, you want to argue with me about what the amendment means. What it means is not the same thing as what I think is right. The meaning of the amendment is very clear, but not only is it already not adhered to, but concepts of militias and parity in armament with the government are obviously not compatible with 21st century ideas and have since been overridden on grounds of common sense. Hence, I don't argue on the basis of Constitutionality on the first place, but if you want to claim it means something that it doesn't, I'm going to correct you.[/QUOTE] Again: Why would we need to 'add constitutional protections' that already exist? It's a bit like saying 'we can't ban people's right to call for the death of the President because that would impugn on their first amendment rights - and to change the constitution to reject that right we would then open the door to a slippery slope of changes which are dangerous inherently' -- which would ignore that the first amendment makes no such argument for such specific protection, that it is already interpreted that they do not have the right to do so, and which obviously was not the intent of the framers to begin with. That also ignores that we have made many, many, many, many amendments to the Constitution beyond the original articles introduced with it in the following year of its signing -- and the Republic has not fallen yet from it.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166793]'Arms' is specifically neutral. It would account for heavy sticks, the odd butcher knife, and firearms inclusively. Arms is, to use a modern wording, 'weapons'. As I was saying, if the Nightwatch often carried arms and the framers would've considered them in the writing of the constitution. They would likely be considered a form of 'organized militia' as, though being civilian, they are nonetheless a form of armed and organized militia which therefore the Constitution would protect the rights to bear arms for.[/QUOTE] Yeah, totally how we won against the British in the revolution - with billy clubs and tickling.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166798]Again: Why would we need to 'add constitutional protections' that already exist?[/QUOTE] A licensing system is not part of the Constitution and is currently incompatible with Constitutional ideals. The idea of adding such a system to the Constitution in order to protect it from being changed arbitrarily is arguing from the basis of Constitutionality and that is what I am replying to.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166788]And said citizens would, presumably, be a united militia fighting against the government in a time of effective war. It doesn't sound like they intended it to be for peacetime, wherein the requirements appear to be more stringent as you couldn't argue that they're 'a part of a militia' outside of them being a part of a militia, right? (Note by 'peacetime' and 'wartime' I mean the considerations of the citizens; relationship with their government as otherwise they wouldn't really bear much sense)[/QUOTE] Are you saying that people should only have guns to fight the government when the government becomes oppressive, and not a moment prior? How the fuck does that work?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166801]A licensing system is not part of the Constitution and is currently incompatible with Constitutional ideals. The idea of adding such a system to the Constitution in order to protect it from being changed arbitrarily is arguing from the basis of Constitutionality and that is what I am replying to.[/QUOTE] Said licensing system is already implied in that the constitution demands for a well-regulated militia in order for the protections to apply to those who bear those arms. I'm saying your argument has no real Constitutional basis making it irrelevant to begin with. [quote=Emperor Scorpius II]Yeah, totally how we won against the British in the revolution - with billy clubs and tickling.[/quote] So they used arms that weren't arms? What, were they just going around punching the British? What arms do you think I'm not including in your rebuttal here? Please, specifically enumerate which arms you think are not being included when I say 'arms' - where I have already defined what 'arms' means. [quote]Are you saying that people should only have guns to fight the government when the government becomes oppressive, and not a moment prior? How the fuck does that work?[/quote] I'm saying that to have guns to fight the government they should become a part of an organization which holds them accountable for the keeping and maintaining of those weapons, as the constitution appears to request to begin with. It does not require such organizations to only exist in time of rebellion or war - but it does require them to be held accountable for those weapons by an organization larger than their singular selves.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166694]"Well regulated" in the 18th century context is an expression meaning that something is running like a fine watch - well regulated. The modern interpretation would be: "In order the militia to run smoothly, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."[/QUOTE] "Well regulated" does not mean "subject to piles of red tape." The intent of the amendment is clearly to maintain parity with the government. Adding licensing and restricting what types of arms are allowed is not in keeping with the very clear intent of that part of the Constitution. News flash: You don't fight the government in militias formed and managed by the government.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166694]"Well regulated" in the 18th century context is an expression meaning that something is running like a fine watch - well regulated. The modern interpretation would be: "In order the militia to run smoothly, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."[/QUOTE] I fail to see the relevance of this quote. It nonetheless, even with your correction, still properly accounts that it wants for a militia. A smoothly run militia is nonetheless an organized one. e: [quote]"Well regulated" does not mean "subject to piles of red tape." The intent of the amendment is clearly parity with the government. Adding licensing and restricting what types of arms are allowed is not in keeping with the very clear intent of that part of the Constitution. News flash: You don't fight the government in militias formed and managed by the government.[/quote] But it [I]does[/I] mean that the militia in question be organized and well-run. For something to [I]be[/I] well-run, it must be well-regulated by your own clarification of definition. What constitutes as 'well run' is absolutely left up to the government as the amendment makes no statements for or against it. Presumably the framers leave that distinction up to the government of present to make, with arguments for and against what 'well run' should mean being very much their intent by them not specifying what is required for a militia to be considered well-run. Thereby, again, it would fall within the scope of the amendment to add licensing as it is a consideration by the government for what 'well run' would mean in the context of said militia.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166815]I fail to see the relevance of this quote. It nonetheless, even with your correction, still properly accounts that it wants for a militia. A smoothly run militia is nonetheless an organized one.[/QUOTE] But not one subject to government regulations on what types of arms it's allowed to have, in what quantity, and which of its members are allowed to have them.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166815]I fail to see the relevance of this quote. It nonetheless, even with your correction, still properly accounts that it wants for a militia. A smoothly run militia is nonetheless an organized one. e: But it [I]does[/I] mean that the militia in question be organized and well-run. For something to [I]be[/I] well-run, it must be well-regulated by your own clarification of definition. What constitutes as 'well run' is absolutely left up to the government as the amendment makes no statements for or against it. Presumably the framers leave that distinction up to the government of present to make, with arguments for and against what 'well run' should mean being very much their intent by them not specifying what is required for a militia to be considered well-run. Thereby, again, it would fall within the scope of the amendment to add licensing as it is a consideration by the government for what 'well run' would mean in the context of said militia.[/QUOTE] The militia is all able bodied people aged 17-45. That is the militia. Not the people who signed up for their local officiated militia or the national guard. Damn near everyone is the militia. spicy [URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246"]sauce[/URL]

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53166829]The militia is all able bodied people aged 17-45. That is the militia. Not the people who signed up for their local officiated militia or the national guard. Damn near everyone is the militia.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure there was a law in 1903 or something like that which language specifically says "men" aged 17-45, though I'm sure if there's a citizenry uprising the government isn't going to say "oh wait wait, no girls allowed" :v: [editline]28th February 2018[/editline] Oh, ninja'd with your edit

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166820]But not one subject to government regulations on what types of arms it's allowed to have, in what quantity, and which of its members are allowed to have them.[/QUOTE] That is a distinction for the government to make. It would be difficult to state that the amendment does not provide for a consideration of a great deal of armaments since it specifically states 'arms', which is about as generic a term for a weapon as you can get, for what falls under its protections. Nonetheless, it requires those who would take up arms in kind with that amendment to follow its provisions, much as the first amendment does not protect citizens who create undue states of panic with their freedom of speech. The nearly sole provision the amendment makes is that the militia be well-regulated, and the entity to make the distinction as to whether they are or not well-regulated is being left to the Government by implicit citizen/state distinction. Otherwise, the citizens would judge themselves well-run and the 'well run' portion of the amendment would serve no useful purpose to begin with. Given that this document was written by a lot of expert lawyers, I imagine that they wouldn't write in a statement which contradicts itself or is useless. [quote=Zombine]The militia is all able bodied people aged 17-45. That is the militia. Not the people who signed up for their local officiated militia or the national guard. Damn near everyone is the militia. spicy sauce[/quote] Sure, but that is definitely not the intent of the amendment as written, I'd figure. For it to be 'well run' to begin with, it requires for an organizational structure. e: Also a clarification, as the militia is divided into distinct subgroups which [B]absolutely[/B] includes 'those who signed up for the national guard and local officiated militia'. [quote] (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166808] I'm saying that to have guns to fight the government they should become a part of an organization which holds them accountable for the keeping and maintaining of those weapons, as the constitution appears to request to begin with. It does not require such organizations to only exist in time of rebellion or war - but it does require them to be held accountable for those weapons by an organization larger than their singular selves.[/QUOTE] There does not need to be a overwatching organization to regulate the militia. People are completely competent to keep and maintain their arms themselves. Source on that - everyone in the US that has a gun already does. [editline]28th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166836] Sure, but that is definitely not the intent of the amendment as written, I'd figure. For it to be 'well run' to begin with, it requires for an organizational structure.[/QUOTE] If that was the intent, where were said organized militia institutions all over America in 1790?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53166841]There does not need to be a overwatching organization to regulate the militia. People are completely competent to keep and maintain their arms themselves.[/quote] Provided that they are well run, sure. If they're not well run they don't fall under those protections - who makes that distinction is absolutely someone who is overwatching them - and who would be overwatching them would likely be their local or state government, who would thereby by accountable to the federal government (via Congress) should their militia prove unruly. [quote]If that was the intent, where were said organized militia institutions all over America in 1790?[/QUOTE] As you say, they were all over America. [quote=Wikipedia] During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were eligible for the militia. [B]Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense. The year before the US Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the founders' vision of the militia. The new Constitution empowered Congress to regulate this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[/B] [/quote]

I disagree with the 1903 ruling saying everyone is the militia - I think the purpose of the amendment is to arm citizens for the purpose of allowing well regulated militias to form in response to tyranny (considering groups like the Minutemen). The text of the amendment, in literal terms, says: smoothly running militias are necessary for the security of the freedom of the country (e.g. against tyranny of the government), therefore, the right of the people (being everyone) to own weapons shall not be infringed. Reductionism like "well sticks are technically arms if used like weapons so you can have those haha but no guns" is clearly not in keeping with the intent of the text.