Bitcoin Forum
August 13, 2022, 03:53:54 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Other / Politics & Society / Advocates for free speech start to make their voices known on: July 08, 2020, 03:17:15 PM
https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

I know of a few of the people that signed on as I've been listening to their yt videos on this topic for awhile now. That list could have been a hell of a lot longer so will be interesting to see if others step out from the shadows and add their voice to the message in some other ways. This is a real issue that affects everyone on both sides of the political spectrum and it needs voices from both sides to speak out and stop burying their heads in the sand. This isn't just a US issue either. It's all western nations and it's pervaded every aspect of our societies.
2  Other / Politics & Society / Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on: July 02, 2020, 02:53:17 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/us/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein/index.html

Get your popcorn as this should be interesting.
3  Other / Politics & Society / Unity 2020 on: July 02, 2020, 09:06:45 AM
https://medium.com/@ArticlesOfUnity/the-articles-of-unity-f544f930d336

https://youtu.be/b4H-0S89pxU

On it's surface I like the idea but I haven't put much thought into it yet.
4  Other / Politics & Society / Let's Discuss the Second Amendment Take 2 on: January 30, 2020, 08:49:51 AM
Need to redo this as the moderated checkbox had become unchecked.. So take 2

-------------------------------------------------------

Yes this is self moderated. Keep on topic and don't get into any personal attacks.

This is not about gun control as any laws would have to adhere to the Second Amendment so keep it to the amendment.

Quote
Right to Bear Arms
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

IMO all the arguments about gun control and the like are simply pointless until the meaning of the second amendment is clearly defined. Frankly, I'd like to see some blatantly bad laws passed that could be used to take it to the supreme court in order to get them to finally rule on it completely once and for all. Until that happens, both sides get to use this issue to divide the voters when it shouldn't be the case.

One of the initial problems with this amendment is how you interpret the main portion of the sentence. For example, is it:

A well regulated Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.

I believe that most people, including myself, believe that the first one is the correct interpretation although I'm sure there are some that will argue for the second as I can't see how one could want "no guns" unless they did.

For myself, I support the rights of people to own arms for defense and I would never support any laws or people regardless of party that would try and do away with that. I'm an independent and while I vote left, I have voted the other way a couple times when I felt the issues were important enough so would have no problem doing so over this. I don't believe in the party system and so don't follow lock step with any one side. Also, regulation is a completely different issue than rights.

The supreme court has only heard a couple cases related to the second amendment and that's what they have basically upheld. They seem to punt on the rest of it though. They have also stipulated that not all weapons are intended for self defense. For example, they mentioned that sawed off shotguns are not and so the people do not have the right to own/use them.

Now, although it's not covered, I would think that hunting weapons could be considered a weapon of self defense as that could be the only weapon a hunter owns. I would think that any attempt to exclude hunting weapons that people use to feed themselves would tend to invoke other parts of the constitution so I don't see the point in discussing them unless you're of the opinion there should be no guns.

So here's where we get into what I view as the primary outstanding issue and where I have a problem. Given sawed off shotguns are not considered a weapon of defense, I doubt an assault weapon would be either. So we're left with the militia portion in order to justify them. There are no militias any more, not as they once were as part of the states themselves. So how can it be argued that individuals that are not part of a militia, have the right to own them? I've looked into the history of the militias and am not convinced it's valid any more.

There was a report or something written years ago that argued for gun ownership related to militias. It was written by Republicans and had a Democratic rebuttal. I didn't save it and have failed to find it again so if someone does please post it. I felt the the Republicans made a very strong argument for their case and the Democratic one was woefully inadequate. But I was still not convinced.

So, what's your take on the second amendment? Is the militia part still valid today and thus things like assault weapons are a right? People argue that they need them to overthrow the government if need be. But the second amendment stipulates that the right is in terms of the states themselves. So how can that argument hold up? Make your case.
5  Other / Politics & Society / Let's Discuss the Second Amendment on: January 29, 2020, 03:39:10 PM
Yes this is self moderated. Keep on topic and don't get into any personal attacks.

This is not about gun control as any laws would have to adhere to the Second Amendment so keep it to the amendment.

Quote
Right to Bear Arms
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

IMO all the arguments about gun control and the like are simply pointless until the meaning of the second amendment is clearly defined. Frankly, I'd like to see some blatantly bad laws passed that could be used to take it to the supreme court in order to get them to finally rule on it completely once and for all. Until that happens, both sides get to use this issue to divide the voters when it shouldn't be the case.

One of the initial problems with this amendment is how you interpret the main portion of the sentence. For example, is it:

A well regulated Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.

I believe that most people, including myself, believe that the first one is the correct interpretation although I'm sure there are some that will argue for the second as I can't see how one could want "no guns" unless they did.

For myself, I support the rights of people to own arms for defense and I would never support any laws or people regardless of party that would try and do away with that. I'm an independent and while I vote left, I have voted the other way a couple times when I felt the issues were important enough so would have no problem doing so over this. I don't believe in the party system and so don't follow lock step with any one side. Also, regulation is a completely different issue than rights.

The supreme court has only heard a couple cases related to the second amendment and that's what they have basically upheld. They seem to punt on the rest of it though. They have also stipulated that not all weapons are intended for self defense. For example, they mentioned that sawed off shotguns are not and so the people do not have the right to own/use them.

Now, although it's not covered, I would think that hunting weapons could be considered a weapon of self defense as that could be the only weapon a hunter owns. I would think that any attempt to exclude hunting weapons that people use to feed themselves would tend to invoke other parts of the constitution so I don't see the point in discussing them unless you're of the opinion there should be no guns.

So here's where we get into what I view as the primary outstanding issue and where I have a problem. Given sawed off shotguns are not considered a weapon of defense, I doubt an assault weapon would be either. So we're left with the militia portion in order to justify them. There are no militias any more, not as they once were as part of the states themselves. So how can it be argued that individuals that are not part of a militia, have the right to own them? I've looked into the history of the militias and am not convinced it's valid any more.

There was a report or something written years ago that argued for gun ownership related to militias. It was written by Republicans and had a Democratic rebuttal. I didn't save it and have failed to find it again so if someone does please post it. I felt the the Republicans made a very strong argument for their case and the Democratic one was woefully inadequate. But I was still not convinced.

So, what's your take on the second amendment? Is the militia part still valid today and thus things like assault weapons are a right? People argue that they need them to overthrow the government if need be. But the second amendment stipulates that the right is in terms of the states themselves. So how can that argument hold up? Make your case.
6  Other / Politics & Society / What's Drudges opinion of Warren on: October 16, 2019, 08:31:02 AM
So drudge has this as the pic of Warren.



I couldn't help but think of this iconic guy.



Do you think it's a coincidence? Memes of Warren are certainly welcome lol
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!