It Does No Good To Have A Permit and NOT Carry

[Lohman446]

The more requirements you put into place to allow someone to exercise their rights the more you limit those rights to those of means (time and money).

I mean I would prefer that those exercising their right to free speech be well educated (college is not the bi-directional equivalent of education), articulate, and follow a reasonable line of logic. I'm not out there advocating that it be a criminal offense to exercise your right without these things.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Let's see -- you wrote:

It is dangerous to have the Mall Ninjas and Wanna Be's running around armed with no training. It is a disaster going to happen.

In response to that statement, I asked:

To address this issue, do you advocate revising the Second Amendment to add a required training component before citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms?

You then posted:

Analogies: Using these things cloud discussions. The supposed number of deaths caused by doctors have what to do with concealed carry? What does the Second Amendment have to do with toaster ovens? Using these fake histories and made up stuff is a way of powering others down in discussions. Is the doctor caused deaths more or less than the babies delivered. Did the Doctors have carry permits?

While we're talking about clouding the issue: what does any of your post number 79 have to do with my question? You consider allowing people to carry without training (how MUCH training?) to be dangerous, but the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about training. It says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." How do you reconcile the inherent conflict between your statement, and the specific and direct language of the Second Amendment?

I'm not against training. I'm a certified trainer for multiple NRA courses. I'm happy to provide as much training as anyone wants. But ... it should be voluntary. The Second Amendment doesn't require it. From your posts, I can't figure out what your position is.

 

[Lohman446]

but the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about training. It says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." How do you reconcile the inherent conflict between your statement, and the specific and direct language of the Second Amendment?

It depends on how one looks at the "well regulated militia" portion. While Heller has been interpreted to indicate an individual right there is a reasonable argument to be made that "well regulated", in the language of the day, had to do with training as well as provisioning.

I still disagree with the argument that allows the limitation of rights and thus sets them as the rights of the wealthy but its not an impossible argument to make.

 

[zukiphile]

It depends on how one looks at the "well regulated militia" portion. While Heller has been interpreted to indicate an individual right there is a reasonable argument to be made that "well regulated", in the language of the day, had to do with training as well as provisioning.

Emphasis added.

That portion isn't a limitation on the right described.

It is true that some who seek to disregard the right will argue that it means something other than what it says, that it only means "so long as a well regulated militia is necessary …", but that some people argue that doesn't make it reasonable.

It's true that training is linked in that you can't train if you've nothing with which to train, but that wouldn't mean the right would depend on having received instruction before the right vests.

A well read citizenry being necessary to the health of a representative government, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Would anyone read that to mean that if we no longer think being well read is important, then the "shall not" may be disregarded?

 

[Lohman446]

The argument has less to do with the need for a militia though I think you will find Jefferson would have argued the health of our union as it was conceived was and continues to be dependent on a militia capable of military force.

The argument had to do with the term well regulated and the use of the term regulated as it related to training. It should be noted regulated also has to do with provisioning and the arms "allowed" to the normal citizen are not in line with what would be required to provision a modern militia.

I don't accept the argument that well regulated allows for a training mandate in the end and its not consistent with modern court rulings. I also would like to reiterate that training mandates limit the exercise of the right to those with means and that is not consistent with the rest of the framing of the Constitution.

 

[zukiphile]

Lohman, I dispute none of your historical observations, and you've been clear that you don't personally endorse a training limitation on the exercise of the right.

My resistance is to the idea that it would be reasonable to argue to incorporate as current limitations characteristics of 18th century militia practice. The words of the Amendment itself don't suggest that, yet it seems to belong to a family of arguments that note how things have changed since ratification in order to take an eraser to it figuratively.

 

[J.G. Terry]

2A-Not trying to rattle cages

We were taught on several levels of education that the 2A was a state right. The right to defend states against tyranny was the purpose of the 2A. My history books speaks of the Redcoats going Lexington and Concord to disarm the Committees of Safety. It would appear that the Committees of Safety were seen as a organized militia. The 2A was there to assure protection from a tyrannical central power be it domestic or foreign. This belief is widespread and is to become again an issue. The rest of the story is that the entire 2A issue as it stands today is four decades old NRA propaganda. I did not make this up! Do some home work.

Personally, I have considerable time and money invested in firearms etc. I see this is a individual personal issue. I'll take my own course. I see some of the pro-gun supporters nationally as a menace. It may be difficult to defend the 2A as a totally permissive proposition concerning anything goes since it, no matter how crazy, is a Constitutional Right. Let's see how all this plays put.

I'm not even going to this training thing any further than in my previous post.

 

[TunnelRat]

I'd suggest you do some homework on D.C. vs. Heller with regards to the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[zukiphile]

It may be difficult to defend the 2A as a totally permissive proposition concerning anything goes since it, no matter how crazy, is a Constitutional Right.

Who in mainstream elective politics or the judiciary does that?

The rest of the story is that the entire 2A issue as it stands today is four decades old NRA propaganda. I did not make this up!

That it isn't your original thought doesn't mean the charge is valid.

A reading of the language of the 2d Am. to mean what the words say can't have been a four decades old NRA project. Reading text for what it says predates the NRA, the COTUS and the country itself. That the clarification leading up to and resulting in the Heller decision occurred during the political push to make firearms possession illegal shouldn't be a surprise. What is the need for a clear understanding of the terms of the amendment when infringement is rare?

It isn't as if americans were inured to numerous and grossly intrusive firearms restrictions and the NRA simply decided to change American culture. The culture once threatened reacted. It may seem a small point, but the NRA weren't actually in the lead on clarification of the meaning and scope of the 2d Am. That's the product of other organizations, academics and judges.

I'm not even going to this training thing any further than in my previous post.

A disdain for other peoples' exercise of a right on which you rely is hard to defend.

 

[J.G. Terry]

Just a description of what out there.

I am trying to tell folks what's going on and some of the origins of these beliefs. My suggestion is do some homework on what anti-gun organizations are saying. If anybody has a problem with what those groups are saying confront them. This preaching to the choir is not working.

There is a piece from Associated Press on the current NRA Board Meeting in today's paper. This included the decision to move the meeting. This article includes a brief description of the scandal. Also included are some of the people trying to clean up the mess. Most importantly there is a brief portion on what's happening in Washington currently.

 

[zukiphile]

I am trying to tell folks what's going on and some of the origins of these beliefs. My suggestion is do some homework on what anti-gun organizations are saying. If anybody has a problem with what those groups are saying confront them. This preaching to the choir is not working.

Let's not escape into cliché.

Addressing the assertions you make isn't preaching to the choir, and asking that responses be addressed to others isn't a sensible way to discuss them.

If you think it is dangerous for people, Mall Ninjas and Wanna Bes, to be armed, you may have discovered the purpose of being armed. It's fair for people to wonder whether the untrained have the right, or whether you believe a certificate that one has completed a safety course should be a prerequisite to exercise.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It depends on how one looks at the "well regulated militia" portion. While Heller has been interpreted to indicate an individual right there is a reasonable argument to be made that "well regulated", in the language of the day, had to do with training as well as provisioning.

As Zukiphile has already mentioned, the Heller decision made it very clear, through a thorough discussion of the grammar and linguistics, that the militia clause in the Second Amendment is a non-binding prefatory clause that serves only as in introduction, and does not alter or affect the meaning of the primary body of the amendment.

Even if it did, "well regulated" as used in the Second Amendment meant something more akin to "let's get everyone on the same page." If you look at the language of the original Militia Act that followed the 2A by a very few years, it discusses the equipment that each militiaman was expected (actually, required) to bring with him to drills.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unit.../Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_33

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. 1803, ch. 15.That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound.

So "well regulated" didn't mean that every militiaman was to be an ace sharpshooter (in those days, that was probably more or less assumed). It meant "trained" in the sense of drilled and equipped so that each company of militia was prepared to function as a military (or, at least, quasi-military) body, able to understand and respond to orders, and all similarly equipped and provisioned.

 

[TunnelRat]

I am trying to tell folks what's going on and some of the origins of these beliefs. My suggestion is do some homework on what anti-gun organizations are saying. If anybody has a problem with what those groups are saying confront them. This preaching to the choir is not working.



There is a piece from Associated Press on the current NRA Board Meeting in today's paper. This included the decision to move the meeting. This article includes a brief description of the scandal. Also included are some of the people trying to clean up the mess. Most importantly there is a brief portion on what's happening in Washington currently.

Right, and people have responded to what you've said with facts that you've flatly ignored and then gone on to bring up other points, only slightly related.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[J.G. Terry]

Let's see what happens

Let's see how these current court challenges to laws like in Chicago turn out. Heller was a decision that could be reversed. Heller reversed previous decisions. Like it or not and scream like a mashed cat the 2A carpet could be yanked from beneath our feet. Heller was a court decision if I recall correctly. That decision can be reversed. Right? No amount of rationalization or justification can change that fact.

If you do not like what I am saying use of the ignore button is encouraged.

 

[zukiphile]

Heller reversed previous decisions.

Have you read it?

I don't mean that as a "gotcha". Your comment prompts the question, and it isn't unusual for people to have strong opinions on decisions without having read them, e.g. Roe, Citizens United.

 

[J.G. Terry]

Heller is a court decision and can be reversed right?

 

[zukiphile]

Heller is a court decision and can be reversed right?

This evasion suggests that you've not read it. Of course, if my inference is wrong, I invite correction. Why assert that Heller reversed a prior decision?

Of course, Heller can be reversed as can the decisions regarding the Skokie march, Citizens United or any other case. And? What do you make of the observation that a Supreme Court decision can be reversed?

 

[TunnelRat]

Let's see how these current court challenges to laws like in Chicago turn out. Heller was a decision that could be reversed. Heller reversed previous decisions. Like it or not and scream like a mashed cat the 2A carpet could be yanked from beneath our feet. Heller was a court decision if I recall correctly. That decision can be reversed. Right? No amount of rationalization or justification can change that fact.



If you do not like what I am saying use of the ignore button is encouraged.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking what you're saying. It has to do with the fact that you seem to be saying you're here to help us, yet you don't seem interested in real discussion and when flaws in your arguments are pointed out you sidestep them. That doesn't end up coming across as altruistic.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[J.G. Terry]

Ok, I have not mastered the quotes on this forum. I'll do better. I'm not interested in fighting some battles. Often these things are statements disguised as questions. I don't play that game. When I have said the same thing five different ways there is not interested in doing it the sixth. If you don''t like the way I do things fire up that ignore button.

Heller: I had said my piece and that was it. No, I don't care to discuss Heller.

Altruistic?:Not trying here to help people but to engage in the thread. Some of the comments are so far from my understanding or experience I do not want to offend nor deal with the statement etc. Remember, an arguments is when we/us have to say what we want to say more than once.

Facts: Frankly some of these "facts" miss being facts by some considerable distance.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Heller is a court decision and can be reversed right?

Heller is a court decision and, as such, can be reversed. But it is a decision of the Supreme Court, and such decisions are not overturned lightly. They are overturned only when and if a later court determines that a preceding decision was manifestly erroneous. That's possible, of course, but you make it sound like something that's virtually guaranteed to happen ... which it's not.

Heller was a decision that could be reversed. Heller reversed previous decisions.

I don't think Heller reversed any previous SCOTUS decisions, but I've been wrong before. Which previous SCOTUS decision(s) did Heller reverse, and on what grounds was/were the reversal(s) made?

From the Wikipedia article on the Heller decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation." In other words, no preceding case contradicts this ruling. That's another way of saying "We're not overruling any preceding decisions." But it also emphasizes that the Supreme Court places a lot of weight on precedent. If they didn't, Mr. Scalia wouldn't have been so careful to spell out how preceding decisions were NOT at odds with the majority decision he wrote for the Heller case.