At 11/10/14 04:00 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Oh. I guess uncooperative with authorities, not being 100% helpful with investigations, or just plain seeming like you have an interest in stalling or stymying a case. (But not actually hampering said case) That sort of contempt. Was that narrow enough?

Well, actual hinderance can be called hindering prosecution or Obstruction of a law enforcement officer and I'm sure there are other names.

However, if you don't actually hinder the case, but you are not being helpful when questioned, that's called (this is a term of art, mind you) "Really suspicious". It's not illegal to not help an invesigation, though it does attract a ton of police and state attention. It is illegal to go out of your way to hurt an investigation.

You can be held in general contempt for failing to show (in many jurisdictions this depends on the type of service), or failing to answer questions as a witness in court. There are a few privileges that allow a person to not talk, but in reality, these only apply to a very small percentage of witnesses.

At 11/10/14 04:11 PM, Feoric wrote: recalcitrant witnesses.

Oh, and an tip to all. This site that Feoric used (and I have used for a while) is the best place to look up Federal Statutes. All federal statutes are free to the public, but this site has a very good catalogue and navigational system. My law school's reference desk highly recommends this for easy searches (though, it never hurts to hit the most recent digest to ensure proper citation.)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

At 10/9/14 05:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I tried the United States Code, but got nowhere. This isn't as easy as looking up a specific crime in the penal code. I don't even know in which sections to look. This is in relation to a criminal act, but most places have been calling it civil forfeiture.

Without a good starting point, or even a good clue as to what exactly I am looking for, looking up the statutes is like a Wheres Waldo picture, except, I don't know what Waldo looks like.

I'm not sure at what point in the penal code it appears but it's a practice like here.

Basically what it means is that if the police suspect that what you're doing is part of a crime they can seize your property, however you're not on trial your property is. It is also guilty until you prove it innocent. This is mainly used against drug cartels and has been an effective tool, the problem is that it's very easily abused. Anyone travelling with large amounts of money can have it taken away from them because "the average citizen does not carry large amounts of money if it isn't for drugs". The money is then taken from them (although it can be things too, like in the case I linked with a house) and can be taken back if they go to court with the district attorney comes around to preside as the judge (the police taking up court cases in itself is an increasingly common practice which is kind of bullshit but hey if it's against someone who doesn't care then why not), which means they probably won't win. The police then take these funds and well buy something they like. No seriously they buy margarita machines with Civil Forfeiture funds there is no check or regulation on how it can be spent. Which is why people think it's bullshit.

At 11/24/14 08:22 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: So, for literally years I was told inside the classroom that, under the law, you are still in control of your actions when intoxicated/under influence of other substances.

That is not true. While specific laws may vary, most jurisdictions do not allow for certain crimes to be committed if the actor is intoxicated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. In common law criminal jurisdictions, crimes that are specific intent crimes generally cannot be committed by an intoxicated person. In MPC jurisdictions, intoxicated people generally cannot commit crimes that are categorized as knowing or intentional.

Though, as far as I know, strict liability, negligent, reckless and general intent crimes can be charged against those who were intoxicated at the time of the act.

Now, I am about to talk about the most hotly contested seven-letter word in the English world today: consent

Consent is a very difficult issue, as it tends to blend two forms of law: criminal and contract (though, I have not seen any legal scholar or judge actually use contract law, the rules and logic just tend to macth contract law).

Sex is treated like it is a contract between two individuals, meaning if one person lacks capacity to enter into the contract, and the other party takes advantage of this be entering into the contract anyway, that party who takes advantage will be deemed in violation and responsible for any harm resulting therefrom. When both parties lack capacity the contract is thrown out as if it never happened.

However, when it comes to sex, you cannot undo the action. So if both parties are drunk and unable to consent, you can't just say "it never happened" especially if one or both parties decide that they were violated.

Holly fucking shit:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/06/terrifying-law-turns-michigan-into-theocracy/

Perhaps one of the biggest examples ever of when religion is bullshit.

At 12/7/14 01:01 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: Perhaps one of the biggest examples ever of when religion is bullshit.

Here's the text of the Bill. This bill alone is unclear as to what it will cover. It says that religion can trump any neutral law that substantially burdens a person's free exercise of religion. Based on pure text, substantially is a pretty high burden, but based upon the rhetoric of those passing the law, they want substantially to read "any". So, this will have to wait a while to play out.

On top of that, it imposes an intermediate scrutiny upon the decisions of the state even to impose substantially burdensome legislation. Intermediate scrutiny, while fairly difficult to satisy s not the nearly impossible level that Strict scrutiny is.

While, I think the whole idea of any of the RFRAs is bad, we will have to wait and see exactly how bad this one turns out. If it ends up being like the Federal one (pre-Hobby Lobby mental pretzel) it will end up being mostly academic.

Imagine that. Holder did something good for a change:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-attorney-general-bans-asset-seizure-local-police-195542428.html

It should've never become a law in the first place.

At 8/11/14 05:18 AM, Darthmenisis wrote:

At 7/31/14 05:56 PM, Greggg586 wrote: apparently I've heard that the right to bare arms isn't actually protecting what we commonly thought it was protecting, and that is the right for the state militia to bare arms.

"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.”

Yeah, anyone who reads it knows that. The question is how do you feel about that?

Actually, anyone who reads it and has an understanding of basic grammar understands that it is NOT talking about a right that belongs to the 'militia'. There is no verb acting on the noun 'militia'. However, the prohibition of the verb 'infringed' would be 'the people'.

So no...the 2nd Amendment does not refer to a right of the militia. Which brings up another point: the only right addressed here is in relation to 'the people' (which to the founders meant individual rights). There is no indication in the text that any rights were ascribed to the various militias.

At 2/24/15 12:34 AM, TheMason wrote: Actually, anyone who reads it and has an understanding of basic grammar understands that it is NOT talking about a right that belongs to the 'militia'. There is no verb acting on the noun 'militia'. However, the prohibition of the verb 'infringed' would be 'the people'.

So no...the 2nd Amendment does not refer to a right of the militia. Which brings up another point: the only right addressed here is in relation to 'the people' (which to the founders meant individual rights). There is no indication in the text that any rights were ascribed to the various militias.

I like how when people debate what the founders intended they don't refer to any primary source material but just grammar. If the 2nd Amendment had to do with self defense then it wouldn't talk about milita's in the first place. But it was clear that the amendment was intended to protect the right to form militia's because the Founders believed that would be the primary military of the US. That notion quickly fell apart because American militia's were notoriously ineffective and obstructive at times, during wars between territorial governments which at most a few people died and everyone else ran away to militia's in the South during the Civil War taking supplies from the main army. They were just a poor way of fighting wars and so a standing army was formed.

Or a better point would be that had the Founders intended for the Amendment to pertain to self defense and how modern Conservatives interpret it there would've been cases from the start which support it, where in fact there aren't. People have been arguing that the 2nd Amendment is about Self Defense since the 1800's, until the 2000's they were consistently shot down because the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment as pertaining to militia's. The idea that the 2nd amendment is there to protect the right to self defense (in our context anyway) is a new idea; not an old one. I've heard groups forcing militia's into it by forming them and going to the border to stop illegal immigrants but the main group which started the modern gun rights movement were the Black Panthers. They made it a point to purchase weapons in order to form their own militia's to police themselves as well as to openly carry weapons as a form of protest (which was legal as long as it wasn't being pointed at anyone). Their argument was that the government was abusing their people and they were using the 2nd amendment to fight the injustice of the Government and to police themselves instead of the corrupt local police departments. In turn Governor Ronald Reagan signed legislation drafted by the NRA to restrict guns and ban open carry. To me this is a separate issue, but me-thinks that Maoist black people holding guns would spurned right wingers to be pro-gun control whereas today they're simply white rednecks which makes them anti-gun control.

It's clear however that people are not buying guns to form militia's, they're not buying guns for violent protest or anything they're buying guns for self defense. To kill robbers in their house. That was never the intention of the 2nd amendment.

At 2/24/15 01:13 AM, Warforger wrote: I like how when people debate what the founders intended they don't refer to any primary source material but just grammar. If the 2nd Amendment had to do with self defense then it wouldn't talk about milita's in the first place.

You strongly missed the point of Mason's post. His post was extremely narrow. It was NOT commenting on whether the right of the people to bear arms was for the purpose of maintaining a militia. He was commenting on a prior post that said the 2nd Amendment only existed to provide militias the right to bear arms. While those may sound similar, they are very diffierent.

Giving militias the right to bears would essentially remove the rights of all citizens to bear arms personally. They would only be able to bear arms when in the militia acting upon militia duty. This is definitely not what the 2nd Amendment means. No reading but one seriously pretzled (i.e. magically twisted around) could bear this out.

Now, whether or not the purpose of the amednment was to allow for personal bearing in order to be able to form militias is quite different. This would mean that the primary purpose of arm bearing is for a time of war when militias are needed. This reading would allow for any restriction on arms that does not hinder the ability to form a militia. As you pointed out, there is language in the text that can be logically read to this end.

At 2/24/15 02:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Holy fuck, racist much?

That's precisely his point. Much of the pro-gun lobby is "Holy fuck, rasict much?"

At 2/24/15 01:13 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 2/24/15 12:34 AM, TheMason wrote: Actually, anyone who reads it and has an understanding of basic grammar understands that it is NOT talking about a right that belongs to the 'militia'. There is no verb acting on the noun 'militia'. However, the prohibition of the verb 'infringed' would be 'the people'.

So no...the 2nd Amendment does not refer to a right of the militia. Which brings up another point: the only right addressed here is in relation to 'the people' (which to the founders meant individual rights). There is no indication in the text that any rights were ascribed to the various militias.

I like how when people debate what the founders intended they don't refer to any primary source material but just grammar.

If you look at the post to which I was responding, my response was perfectly acceptable. The poster was making the inference that it is plain by the language of 2A that it is in reference to militia. When in fact the opposite is true.

I seldom go to the historical record for several reasons:

1) Those who are anti-2A will counter that this was 200 years ago and thus it is no longer relevant as a civil right. A similar argument (if not related) is that of the 'living document' proponents who try and re-interpret it (to which the militia argument you and the poster is a groundless example of). This just moves me into the present (re: firearms technology, medical technology, and the social science) in order to attempt to disabuse the other person of their ignorance regarding the topic.

2) While I believe that much of the Enlightenment philosophy upon which the Founders crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights is timeless, I have found that such arguments often fall on the deaf ears of people who are on the fence. In fact, it works against my argument because now I have to (once again) show how it is still relevant today.

However, if you want to go there:

The first thing one needs to know about the relationship between 2A and self-defense is the state of law enforcement in the early days of the Republic. Basically...not much of one existed. What did exist were ad hoc patrols and in most communities people policed themselves. In some of the larger cities you did not see actual police departments forming until towards the middle third of the 1800s. (SOURCE) So the 2A was written in a time where the firearm was commonly used for self-defense (along with militia service...which included quasi-law enforcement).

As for the founders themselves:
"Arms is the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
-John Adams

"This may be considered as the palladium of liberty...The right of self defense is the first law of nature:..."
-St. George Tucker (This is part of a larger legal commentary in which he also brings in themes of hunting and social inequality in the example of English laws aimed at preserving game animals for the aristocracy.)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria (a contemporary criminologist)

So I'm sorry...but the historical record is quite clear that the Founders saw the 2A as more than just protecting the right to form a militia or hunt. They were well aware of the importance of having a firearm for self-defense. They were heavily influenced by English Enlightenment thinking especially when it came to the Bill of Rights...which included a natural right to self-defense. They also so how those in power can manipulate the law for their own ends and so the 2A was a very egalitarian inclusion in our Bill of Rights.

Also, the militia paradigm held up for a long while. It wasn't until the 1903 Militia Act that the concept of a 'National Guard' spread beyond New York. Even today some states still maintain an official militia separate from the National Guard. Furthermore, we did not really have a permanent, standing Army until after WWII.

To paraphrase Marshall Eriksen:
History Teachered!

At 2/24/15 03:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/24/15 02:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Holy fuck, racist much?

That's precisely his point. Much of the pro-gun lobby is "Holy fuck, rasict much?"

Camaro,

1) Thanks for your previous response.

2) I don't know that we can quantify how much of the pro-gun lobby is 'racist'. From my perspective as being part of the 'gun culture'...my gut tells me 'not much'. However, I do not think that there is no such thing as a pro-gun racist. I know they exist.

3) I think an equal number of pro-gun-control racists also exist. All I have to do is point to the history of gun-control used to disarm blacks in the US. These laws come from Democrats and Republicans, Progressives and Conservatives...all aimed at using gun control to keep the black man down. I often wonder how big the gang problem in California would be if Reagan had not disarmed the Black Panthers when they were patrolling their streets since the police were unable (unwilling) to.

Just offering a different perspective, I doubt there is any scientific way to settle this and the question would devolve into a flame war.

At 2/24/15 11:43 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) I don't know that we can quantify how much of the pro-gun lobby is 'racist'. From my perspective as being part of the 'gun culture'...my gut tells me 'not much'. However, I do not think that there is no such thing as a pro-gun racist. I know they exist.

That makes sense, though warforger is right. much of those who fight so fervently in favor of gun rights would be singing a very different tune were the majority of gun owners non-white and non-christian. On both sides people's devotion to the Constitution is largely affected by who the believe benefits or is burdened by the specific language.

You can bet that a sizeable cunk on the left are a lot less enthusiastic about freedom of religion topics regarding christians being hindered than Muslims, or other minority religions.

3) I think an equal number of pro-gun-control racists also exist.

Not sure an equal number, but definitely a portion.

Just offering a different perspective, I doubt there is any scientific way to settle this and the question would devolve into a flame war.

Exactly, though the notion of Constitutional being affected by the demographic of whom the language effects is a quite interesting issue.

At 2/25/15 12:44 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/24/15 11:43 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) I don't know that we can quantify how much of the pro-gun lobby is 'racist'. From my perspective as being part of the 'gun culture'...my gut tells me 'not much'. However, I do not think that there is no such thing as a pro-gun racist. I know they exist.

That makes sense, though warforger is right. much of those who fight so fervently in favor of gun rights would be singing a very different tune were the majority of gun owners non-white and non-christian. On both sides people's devotion to the Constitution is largely affected by who the believe benefits or is burdened by the specific language.

Again, I don't think you can say with any degree of objective confidence that Warforger is right here. All we have to go on is our respective gut feelings about 'our' side vs the 'other' side. If you hold the perspective that much of the Right in this country have a backwards, racist worldview...then that will shadow your perspective...and hence your gut feeling.

Likewise, I grew up in the country and around guns and I am intimately familiar with the worldview. Yes there is racism in the country, but it is nowhere near what it once was...even in the short time I have been around. And while truthfully you may be likely to overstate the amount of racism...I am probably prone to understate it due to my proximity to the gun issue and desire not to be viewed as a racist.

In the end, until one side or another can provide solid data that answers the question...neither side is right.

3) I think an equal number of pro-gun-control racists also exist.

Not sure an equal number, but definitely a portion.

Honestly, I'd say there is a good possibility that it is more. And I am about to blow your mind with a radical thought:left-wing, progressive thought in this country is inherently racist. The core message is: women and minorities cannot advance without the help of a benevolent government...or even have a voice without a white person (preferably a man). In the opening to one of his speeches to a college audience, Tim Wise straight up said that minority perspectives cannot be heard unless coming from a white man. I get the sense that many older white liberals wrap themselves up in the cloak of progressivism as a way of dealing with their guilt over their own racial and gender bias.

In my experience, once I get to know people who are further Left than the Clintons I run into a LOT of hate and just plain miserable people. More so than I ran into growing up in my backwards, redneck small Missouri town.

But again, see my point above. Without data that objectively analyzes the motivation behind a person's support of an ideology in general or policy position specifically...all you and I are arguing over are our separate anecdotal experiences. At this point, neither one of us are right.

Hence why I usually try to avoid the philosophical fight over this issue.

I like how it devolved into a simple fight about race. Race may be a part of that, not in the sense that people think another race is inferior, but in the sense that it is a different group of people. Their radical left wing ideology was a part of that too. All I was trying to say was that right wingers were more willing to support gun rights when it came other right wingers having guns, they would oppose them if it meant that opposing ideologies were the ones taking guns. Say someone wanted to start an Islamist militia in the US using the 2nd amendment as their cover. Do you think the NRA or their supporters would oppose the government in confiscating their weapons? I mean I guess the answer would then be yes because they have opposed regulations on ivory, which terrorists across the world from Al-Shaqqib to Boko Haram have used to fund their wars, on the basis that it's a plot to take guns away because some guns gave Ivory handles. But then the bigger issue is would the people are Fox News and the average gun rights supporter think that way? Do you think it would be any different if the Communists, Socialists, Hippies, liberals did the same on the same basis?

My point is less the politics of racism and more the politics of hating other groups of people. Whenever you hear someone like Rand Paul talk one of the first things they do is accuse their Liberal opponents of being "Elitist" and that seems to be their primary argument. They try to associate their opponents with California or something like that, hence why some Republicans complained about the "Chicago style politics" Obama brought, whatever that meant (Yes I am aware of the rampant corruption of the Illinois State government). The idea of the rural country side versus the elitist city i.e. it doesn't matter what each side believes as long as they think it's the opposite of what the other side believes.

At 2/28/15 04:52 AM, Darthmenisis wrote: "A well-regulated Militia" is the very first part of the amendment. It is because a (regulated) militia is necessary that people may bare arms. Otherwise (and keep in mind it is a legal document) there would be no reason to mention militias at all. Thus, because it is a legal document, the mention of militia makes it relevant to the entire amendment. Also note the lack of periods, because the founding fathers were masters of run-on sentences, and that is terrible for legal documents.

The 2A was written in accordance with 18th Century norms, therefore to judge their writing style as 'terrible' is very modern-centric. And is the very weakness of your argument.

In the 18th Century it was common to add a preamble clause to the beginning of a statute, constitution, or other legal document. These were normally reserved for documents that were viewed as being particularly important. Preamble clauses are merely statements of why the law is needed or important and does not have any bearing on the legal document in terms of conferring powers. This is why the object (noun) of the clause has no action verb operating on it.

So to bring the discussion back to the 2A...

Yes, the militia part is important, but not really legally relevant. The Founders did not want a standing army (something I think we need to look into for today), and so saw the militia or armed citizenry as a necessary component of our national defense. At that time, the militia was responsible for arming themselves. In fact, in some respects this was beneficial since civilian arms tended to be technologically superior to military arms. For example, commanders preferred smoothbore muskets to rifles because wildly inaccurate...the smoothbores were considered cheaper and better for lower class troops to maintain. Militias bringing things like the Kentucky rifle to the fight allowed for things like snipers. In the end it is a statement of how the Founders viewed what constituted a proper republican national security infrastructure. Now if anything, it opens up the possibility for the government to legislate that members of the militia own a particular type or firearm or one with certain capabilities (such as caliber and type of magazines it accepts). So if you want to go down the militia route this means that every adult male without a criminal record (and female members of the few remaining organized state militias) could be compelled to go out and purchase an AR-15, and a minimum amount of magazines and ammo.

However, as I have demonstrated the Founders understood that individuals being allowed to own firearms was not only about national security but things like self-defense, hunting, as well as being a natural right. This is why the second half of the amendment is the core of the amendment. It is the operative clause and is the part that describes: 1) to whom the right belongs (the people) and 2) that it shall not be infringed. In relation to this clause, the relevance of the militia language is that it is important for civilians to own firearms of the same general type and class of firearms as the military.

Therefore, the central core of the 2A is that it confers an individual right to own firearms...not a right of the militias.

At 2/28/15 12:39 PM, TheMason wrote: In the 18th Century it was common to add a preamble clause to the beginning of a statute, constitution, or other legal document. These were normally reserved for documents that were viewed as being particularly important. Preamble clauses are merely statements of why the law is needed or important and does not have any bearing on the legal document in terms of conferring powers. This is why the object (noun) of the clause has no action verb operating on it.

Not so. Back then it was very common in contracts to include recitals. These were statements of why a particular portion of, a particular completion of, or the entire contract itself was important. These were considered to place extra emphasis and burden upon the portion of the contract to complete any part of the cpntract relevant to the recital statement as to satisfy whatever specified need was stated in the recital.

While contract law and Constitutional law are two very differnt things, and the recitals idea is a bit different, the precedent that in legal documents any language tied to a provision without being entirely separated from a provision (and this definitely includes reasons why) can be very easily tied to the relevant portion merely because of its inclusion existed. You can argue whether or not they did mean for it to be included, but you cannot say that it was custom not to tie it in.

Either way, I would posit an argument (not necessarily my personal feelings, but quite compelling) that whether or not the milita section is added is moot at the least, or actually expands the right to bear arms at the greatest.

Though we have a very strong conscript military today, the possibility and need for a militia can still arise. No, I don't mean those crazy terrorist rednecks in the Michigan Militia. I mean a true wartime milita or its modern equivalent, bands of partisan guerillas. In this manner having an armed citizenry provides for a quick mustering of either a formal militia or for forming guerilla bands. The 1980s Red Dawn, while fictional, shows a fairly accurate depiction of this concept. So, to that end, every legal weapon today can be used for a militia purpose and therefore would be allowed under the 2nd Amendment. If you wanted to go further, you could say that all infantry weapons, which could be theoritically used by a modern militia, should be allowed, thus making fully automatic weapons, grenades, light missile launchers, and even mortars allowable under the pure text of the second Amendment.

At 2/28/15 10:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Not so.

Yes so. Check out the link I sourced. That and every other source I've seen on the topic of 18th C preambles indicate that they do not define, expand, or confer powers in the legal documents they are contained within.

While contract law and Constitutional law are two very differnt things, and the recitals idea is a bit different,

And this where the wheels fall off.

... the precedent that in legal documents any language tied to a provision without being entirely separated from a provision (and this definitely includes reasons why) can be very easily tied to the relevant portion merely because of its inclusion existed. You can argue whether or not they did mean for it to be included, but you cannot say that it was custom not to tie it in

1) In the case of 2A, the militia clause is not strong enough to confer or enlarge powers. It would be a twist of logic and reason to see this particular preamble clause as something that makes the right a 'militia' right over an individual right. Any relevance or tie-in to place the rights of the militia over the people is a HUGE stretch.

2) You make this point for me below...thanks!

Either way, I would posit an argument (not necessarily my personal feelings, but quite compelling) that whether or not the milita section is added is moot at the least, or actually expands the right to bear arms at the greatest.

Agreed.

Though we have a very strong conscript military today, the possibility and need for a militia can still arise. No, I don't mean those crazy terrorist rednecks in the Michigan Militia. I mean a true wartime milita or its modern equivalent, bands of partisan guerillas. In this manner having an armed citizenry provides for a quick mustering of either a formal militia or for forming guerilla bands. The 1980s Red Dawn, while fictional, shows a fairly accurate depiction of this concept. So, to that end, every legal weapon today can be used for a militia purpose and therefore would be allowed under the 2nd Amendment. If you wanted to go further, you could say that all infantry weapons, which could be theoritically used by a modern militia, should be allowed, thus making fully automatic weapons, grenades, light missile launchers, and even mortars allowable under the pure text of the second Amendment.

If by 'strong conscript military' you mean 'strong volunteer military'...(I've never served with anyone who was conscripted!) :)

At 2/26/15 11:42 AM, Warforger wrote: I like how it devolved into a simple fight about race. Race may be a part of that, not in the sense that people think another race is inferior, but in the sense that it is a different group of people.

You're being more than a little disingenuous here. This is a common refrain from people on the Left who think they know what is in the hearts and minds of people on the Right. If you did not know the direction it would go in, you should have known.

All I was trying to say was that right wingers were more willing to support gun rights when it came other right wingers having guns, they would oppose them if it meant that opposing ideologies were the ones taking guns. Say someone wanted to start an Islamist militia in the US using the 2nd amendment as their cover. Do you think the NRA or their supporters would oppose the government in confiscating their weapons?

This argument is weaker than you think it is.

What you are talking about are ideologies that seek to undermine Constitutional liberties and force their will on others. These are people who would seek to foist their policies on others by force rather than the ballot box. They are enemies of not just the state, but American principles and way of life. It has nothing to differing ideologies or theologies or some racial animus towards a perceived evil/lesser 'other'...but a military threat.

There is a difference.

And this also includes white, radical Christians. Yes there are times that pro-gun groups are overzealous and don't think things through (ie: defending the Branch Davidians)...but painting all of us with the brush of misguided PR campaigns is just as wrong as stereotyping any other group.

It may come as a shock to you, but people like me (and I've heard the lesser Satan Glenn Beck echo this) think that Reagan did something horrible when he disarmed the Black Panthers when he was Governor of California. The group was only attempting to exercise their 2A and natural right to self-defense.

My point is less the politics of racism and more the politics of hating other groups of people.

In relation to guns, I think many in the modern pro-gun movement realize that depriving people this right based on ideology, theology, or skin color is wrong. The line is crossed when groups seek to use these arms to force tyrannical regime change on the US. This includes white militias, black communists, or ISIL in the US.

Furthermore, even for supporters who harbor racial animus I think most are pragmatic enough to see the PR and political expediency of embracing this narrative. Much like the Democrats and Progressives did from FDR to LBJ.

Whenever you hear someone like Rand Paul talk one of the first things they do is accuse their Liberal opponents of being "Elitist" and that seems to be their primary argument. They try to associate their opponents with California or something like that, ...

If by '...someone like Rand Paul...' you mean EVERY politician out there! Warren talks about 'Wall Street' the same way Paul talks about 'Elitist'. It is an appeal to the common man's emotions. California? It's the same thought behind Obama's 'bitter clingers' remark. Simply, it is a tactic that has been used since the beginning of the republic.

...hence why some Republicans complained about the "Chicago style politics" Obama brought, whatever that meant (Yes I am aware of the rampant corruption of the Illinois State government).

It has nothing to do with Illinois State government. In US history there have been three cities synonymous with political machines and corruption: New York, New Orleans, and Chicago. These machines have influenced elections all the way up to federal elections (including the presidency). This has NOTHING to do with race...the machines were all started by white men. And they all tended to be aligned with the Democrats. Tactics included voter fraud and intimidation.

This is one of the early things that gave me pause about Obama. It has nothing to do with being a 'dog whistle'...but everything to do with being skeptical of slick advertising campaigns. About 98% of what I know about Obama as a man...I like. What I don't like are his ideas nor do I think he's up to the job of being president. And I am skeptical of any politician who rises out of those three locations. Regardless of whether or not they appear to be a clone of me or my exact opposite in every way.

The idea of the rural country side versus the elitist city i.e. it doesn't matter what each side believes as long as they think it's the opposite of what the other side believes.

Not necessarily...only at the extremes. I grew-up with people (myself included) who tended to romanticize city life. Likewise I had family in the city who romanticize country life. The problem comes when people from one perspective tries to force their worldview on the other. In Missouri this divide is typified by two different categories of legislation: 1) animal husbandry/right to farm and 2) gun policies (nullification and right to carry).

At 3/1/15 01:23 AM, TheMason wrote: You're being more than a little disingenuous here. This is a common refrain from people on the Left who think they know what is in the hearts and minds of people on the Right. If you did not know the direction it would go in, you should have known.

Yah blah blah blah I'll cry into my Karl Marx pillow. I'm just going off of what I've seen right wingers say, in what they complain about, from LazyDrunk to Rand Paul, and I just see a common pattern of resentment towards other groups of people intertwined with their ideology. However, don't be mistaken, I'm not saying left wingers don't suffer from this either, they too have movements full of people who simply don't like another group in society.

This argument is weaker than you think it is.

What you are talking about are ideologies that seek to undermine Constitutional liberties and force their will on others. These are people who would seek to foist their policies on others by force rather than the ballot box. They are enemies of not just the state, but American principles and way of life. It has nothing to differing ideologies or theologies or some racial animus towards a perceived evil/lesser 'other'...but a military threat.

There is a difference.

So..... you think it's ok to disarm militia's based off their ideology? To begin with all wars are about forcing your will on others, this includes the founding fathers. During the American Revolutionary war it's estimated 25% of people wanted to revolt against Britain, 25% were in support of Britain and 50% simply did not want the war at all. That's 1/4th the population forcing its will on the other 3/4's. Secondly ALL militia's are a military threat, they're not meant to be peaceful and all of them would push forth to foist their policies on others by force, if they didn't why would they form the militia in the first place? (in this context it being a non-government militia). Why don't they just form an interest group? The US is incredibly stable and the most drastic political change post-Reconstruction was largely peaceful and done through the democratic process.

Lastly I don't remember anything which said that everyone had to be in support of the Constitution and the American Way of Life or else it's a crime. Considering that's at best ambiguous and at worst a meaningless propaganda term. The Constitution isn't necessarily the be all end all of America since America itself is older than the Constitution.

It may come as a shock to you, but people like me (and I've heard the lesser Satan Glenn Beck echo this) think that Reagan did something horrible when he disarmed the Black Panthers when he was Governor of California. The group was only attempting to exercise their 2A and natural right to self-defense.

I'm less concerned with say individuals like you and more with the NRA in that case. My issue is that the NRA is pretty much the leader of the Gun Rights movement, if not the most vocal component and it encompasses many things. They're perhaps the most successful interest group (and I see this crap with my ACLU magazine looking like they're trying to be like the NRA by infusing Democratic politics into their magazine just like the NRA infused Republican politics into their politics), but even they supported gun control at a different time. You see what I was saying was the who. Sure today you may say this, but the question is would Conservatives back then say the same thing? Given the fact that it was the NRA and Conservative hero Ronald Reagan doing this against Black Communists and not white right wingers I'm willing to bet that ideology and race were a part of the shift from far left to right wing.

There are always going to be individuals being pure, but what I meant was more of a group. As a group the issue drifted and flip flopped.

In relation to guns, I think many in the modern pro-gun movement realize that depriving people this right based on ideology, theology, or skin color is wrong. The line is crossed when groups seek to use these arms to force tyrannical regime change on the US. This includes white militias, black communists, or ISIL in the US.

It doesn't matter if they're white militia's, black Communists or Daesh, if the 2nd amendment is a Civil Right you shouldn't be able to deprive one's rights based on their beliefs no more than you can deprive their right to freedom of speech or assembly (or I guess according to Obama even that can be taken away with Anwar al Awlaki). Unless of course the right to bear arms is more of a privilege that can be taken away if you're going to abuse it......

If by '...someone like Rand Paul...' you mean EVERY politician out there! Warren talks about 'Wall Street' the same way Paul talks about 'Elitist'. It is an appeal to the common man's emotions. California? It's the same thought behind Obama's 'bitter clingers' remark. Simply, it is a tactic that has been used since the beginning of the republic.

Exactly! That's what I'm saying, hatred towards someone of other classes or area's has been a component of political beliefs for a long time. That's why you see politicians in the South during the Great Depression who were borderline Socialist, their targets were big city capitalists and were focused on programs to help the little guy. You know the kind of stuff that would doom someone's career nowadays in the same area? Hell look all the way back in 1896, William jennings Bryan won nearly the same states Bush won in 2000 while running on a much more left wing platform. Left wing politics were simply what the Democratic party was into and so the South went along with it, when the Democratic party split from segregation entirely the South switched sides. This is why I find modern Conservatives there merely half hearted, regionalism drove the South's position in national politics more than anything. I mean again don't get me wrong, people in places like Massachusetts probably also oppose the GOP on the basis that they're corrupt country people.

It has nothing to do with Illinois State government. In US history there have been three cities synonymous with political machines and corruption: New York, New Orleans, and Chicago. These machines have influenced elections all the way up to federal elections (including the presidency). This has NOTHING to do with race...the machines were all started by white men. And they all tended to be aligned with the Democrats. Tactics included voter fraud and intimidation.

Yah I wasn't talking about race as much as I was talking about Obama being from Illinois, a blue Northern state. Now I think it does have something to do with the Illinois State government, considering the fact that IIRC their last 4 governors have been convicted of corruption.

Not necessarily...only at the extremes. I grew-up with people (myself included) who tended to romanticize city life. Likewise I had family in the city who romanticize country life. The problem comes when people from one perspective tries to force their worldview on the other. In Missouri this divide is typified by two different categories of legislation: 1) animal husbandry/right to farm and 2) gun policies (nullification and right to carry).

Obama is constantly labelled an "elitist" because he's Liberal. These people seem to think that he came from a middle class family and went to a prestige school, never worked a day in his life and now wants to tell them what to do. This completely misses the fact that he didn't have a privileged life, whereas George W, Bush gave everyone the impression of being a lower class all American.... even though he fucked up in life and was only able to get to where he was because of his rich and influential parents. Even though Obama clawed his way up to College and it was handed to George Bush, people seem to think the reverse. Which is the point, people project their resentment towards certain groups of people on ideologies and so it becomes infused, gun rights is one of those issues.

At 3/1/15 10:43 PM, Warforger wrote:

First off, you don't need to 'cry into your Marxist pillow'. You miss the entire point. You need to either stand by your argument by following it down its logical course...or abandon it and admit you're wrong. Don't change course and say 'I actually meant Y, not X.'

... I'm just going off of what I've seen right wingers say, in what they complain about, ... and I just see a common pattern of resentment towards other groups of people intertwined with their ideology. However, don't be mistaken, I'm not saying left wingers don't suffer from this either, ...

Here's the thing about going looking for bias: you're always going to find it. The reality is if there was a way to objectively find out if a person was motivated by fear of the other...on this issue you'd find more white liberals afraid of blacks being armed than white rednecks.

This argument is weaker than you think it is.

These are people who would seek to foist their policies on others by force rather than the ballot box.

So..... you think it's ok to disarm militia's based off their ideology? .... Why don't they just form an interest group? The US is incredibly stable and the most drastic political change post-Reconstruction was largely peaceful and done through the democratic process.

Not off of ideology alone. Once they cross the legal Rubicon into committing violent acts that seek to undermine American's natural rights to life, liberty, happiness, and property. They can go out and train with guns and learn all the tactics they want. They can organize and give each other rank. I don't care. But once they start putting plans in motion...then it becomes an issue.

...The Constitution isn't necessarily the be all end all of America since America itself is older than the Constitution.

Complete drivel. The Constitution is the legal framework that defines the powers and limitations of the government in relation to the states and then with the Bill of Rights: the people. It is an evolved statement of philosophy regarding what good, representative government is as well as enshrining what rights the people retain. It is not a living document, but rather the product of Enlightenment thought, classical studies, and American Colonial experience. This is not propaganda, but the origins of the architecture of American civil-political life.

That you are dismissive of this highlights the weakness of your argument.

I'm less concerned with say individuals like you and more with the NRA in that case. My issue is that the NRA is pretty much the leader of the Gun Rights movement, if not the most vocal component and it encompasses many things. They're perhaps the most successful interest group ..., but even they supported gun control at a different time. You see what I was saying was the who. Sure today you may say this, but the question is would Conservatives back then say the same thing? ...

A few things here:
1) I think the NRA gets a lot of flak for winning. I watched a Frontline special on the power of the NRA and it centered around them leading the rally against post-Newtown gun control. The special was heavy on emotion but did not focus on 'who was right'. They just assumed that supporters of Manchin-Toomey were right and that the 98% polls on background checks were the end-all of American opinion. I support expanding background checks...but not the way M-T did it so I was part of the 48% that was relieved when it did not pass.
2) Just because a policy track makes sense at one time does not mean it makes sense now. With guns there is some gun-control that makes sense. However, at this point in time none of the proposals from Left make any sense whatsoever if to people like me and the NRA. It is not out of ignorance...but actually knowing guns and maybe knowing about how guns are used in crime. So at this point...there really is no compromise to be had since the opposition is action out of fear and ignorance and pushing 'solutions' to problems that won't fix the problem.

In relation to guns, I think many in the modern pro-gun movement realize that depriving people this right based on ideology, theology, or skin color is wrong. The line is crossed when groups seek to use these arms to force tyrannical regime change on the US. This includes white militias, black communists, or ISIL in the US.

It doesn't matter if they're white militia's, black Communists or Daesh, if the 2nd amendment is a Civil Right you shouldn't be able to deprive one's rights based on their beliefs no more than you can deprive their right to freedom of speech or assembly (or I guess according to Obama even that can be taken away with Anwar al Awlaki). Unless of course the right to bear arms is more of a privilege that can be taken away if you're going to abuse it......

If by '...someone like Rand Paul...' you mean EVERY politician out there! Warren talks about 'Wall Street' the same way Paul talks about 'Elitist'. It is an appeal to the common man's emotions. California? It's the same thought behind Obama's 'bitter clingers' remark. Simply, it is a tactic that has been used since the beginning of the republic.

Exactly! That's what I'm saying, hatred towards someone of other classes or area's has been a component of political beliefs for a long time. That's why you see politicians in the South during the Great Depression who were borderline Socialist, their targets were big city capitalists and were focused on programs to help the little guy. You know the kind of stuff that would doom someone's career nowadays in the same area? Hell look all the way back in 1896, William jennings Bryan won nearly the same states Bush won in 2000 while running on a much more left wing platform. Left wing politics were simply what the Democratic party was into and so the South went along with it, when the Democratic party split from segregation entirely the South switched sides. This is why I find modern Conservatives there merely half hearted, regionalism drove the South's position in national politics more than anything. I mean again don't get me wrong, people in places like Massachusetts probably also oppose the GOP on the basis that they're corrupt country people.

It has nothing to do with Illinois State government. ... Tactics included voter fraud and intimidation.

Yah I wasn't talking about race as much as I was talking about Obama being from Illinois, a blue Northern state. Now I think it does have something to do with the Illinois State government, considering the fact that IIRC their last 4 governors have been convicted of corruption.

What you thought you were talking about is less relevant than what you actually said. You brought-up 'Chicago Style politics' along with an indicator of your ignorance about what you were bring up (which should've been a clue to me). When people on the Left talk about Republican use of this...they claim it's a 'dog-whistle' for being racist. However, the context is actually about how the Chicago political machine has historically been one of the top three most corrupt polities in the country.

And it has nothing to do with state government. Statewide elections (such as governor) are decided by Chicago due to the population density of Illinois. Your 'proof' actually deconstructs your own argument.

Not necessarily...only at the extremes.

Obama is constantly labelled an "elitist" because he's Liberal. ...burns a strawman..., gun rights is one of those issues

So you quote me...but then respond to a strawman argument and not what I was saying...

At 3/2/15 01:18 PM, TheMason wrote: Here's the thing about going looking for bias: you're always going to find it. The reality is if there was a way to objectively find out if a person was motivated by fear of the other...on this issue you'd find more white liberals afraid of blacks being armed than white rednecks.

What I mean is that people take up issues solely for their bias. Take Creationism or the movement against Global Warming, do you honestly believe that the people who believe in those things believe them because they've examined the scientific evidence and are hugely educated so they made a conclusion that it's faulty? No people start out believing it because they think their way of life is under attack, they won't apply the same skepticism to any other scientific achievement as far as I can tell.

Not off of ideology alone. Once they cross the legal Rubicon into committing violent acts that seek to undermine American's natural rights to life, liberty, happiness, and property. They can go out and train with guns and learn all the tactics they want. They can organize and give each other rank. I don't care. But once they start putting plans in motion...then it becomes an issue.

Complete drivel. The Constitution is the legal framework that defines the powers and limitations of the government in relation to the states and then with the Bill of Rights: the people. It is an evolved statement of philosophy regarding what good, representative government is as well as enshrining what rights the people retain. It is not a living document, but rather the product of Enlightenment thought, classical studies, and American Colonial experience. This is not propaganda, but the origins of the architecture of American civil-political life.

That you are dismissive of this highlights the weakness of your argument.

America was independent in 1776, the Constitution came about in 1789. That's a period of 23 years of a USA but no Constitution (albeit the Articles of Confederation). Americans can get up tomorrow, think the Constitution is bullcrap and come up with a new one and America will remain there. Which is what I'm saying.

That said the "American Way of Life" is what I was getting at. That's a vernacular term which changes based on whose talking.

A few things here:
1) I think the NRA gets a lot of flak for winning. I watched a Frontline special on the power of the NRA and it centered around them leading the rally against post-Newtown gun control. The special was heavy on emotion but did not focus on 'who was right'. They just assumed that supporters of Manchin-Toomey were right and that the 98% polls on background checks were the end-all of American opinion. I support expanding background checks...but not the way M-T did it so I was part of the 48% that was relieved when it did not pass.

What I have a problem with is when they host conventions, they invite right wing politicians who don't even talk about gun rights and just blabber on about their political platforms. They're becoming more and more intertwined with the GOP, instead of just simply focusing on guns. That's my issue.

2) Just because a policy track makes sense at one time does not mean it makes sense now. With guns there is some gun-control that makes sense. However, at this point in time none of the proposals from Left make any sense whatsoever if to people like me and the NRA. It is not out of ignorance...but actually knowing guns and maybe knowing about how guns are used in crime. So at this point...there really is no compromise to be had since the opposition is action out of fear and ignorance and pushing 'solutions' to problems that won't fix the problem.

The problem has been it's so narrow it's ridiculous. Simply banning people from carrying guns in public is now an assault on the 2nd amendment. ANY regulation it seems is insane, even limiting the amount of bullets per clip in an AR15 (which one Conservative politician at first said was ok but then retracted that after everyone pissed on him over it).

What you thought you were talking about is less relevant than what you actually said. You brought-up 'Chicago Style politics' along with an indicator of your ignorance about what you were bring up (which should've been a clue to me). When people on the Left talk about Republican use of this...they claim it's a 'dog-whistle' for being racist. However, the context is actually about how the Chicago political machine has historically been one of the top three most corrupt polities in the country.

And it has nothing to do with state government. Statewide elections (such as governor) are decided by Chicago due to the population density of Illinois. Your 'proof' actually deconstructs your own argument.

? What argument? I don't see why we can't both be right.

At 3/2/15 09:52 PM, Warforger wrote: What I mean is that people take up issues solely for their bias. Take Creationism or the movement against Global Warming, do you honestly believe that the people who believe in those things believe them because they've examined the scientific evidence and are hugely educated so they made a conclusion that it's faulty? No people start out believing it because they think their way of life is under attack, they won't apply the same skepticism to any other scientific achievement as far as I can tell.

Again you're painting with a broad brush. I'm skeptical of cataclysmic GCC predictions as well as the climate sensitivity to man-made pollution. Is it because I'm a dullard and have no basis to be rationally skeptical?

Let me turn it around...those people who follow GCC and are activists over it...are they educated enough to judge the science as credible?

America was independent in 1776, the Constitution came about in 1789. That's a period of 23 years of a USA but no Constitution (albeit the Articles of Confederation). Americans can get up tomorrow, think the Constitution is bullcrap and come up with a new one and America will remain there. Which is what I'm saying.

Actually it's only 13 years...but what's a decade between friends? :)

Still your point is made no stronger. There is an Article 5 altercation process to do it. ISIL, Commies, or Black Robe Regiment taking up arms and forcing an ideology is a line.

That said the "American Way of Life" is what I was getting at. That's a vernacular term which changes based on whose talking.

It's not propaganda and does not necessarily change all that much. We still share a common culture of how we affect change in our government...through the ballot box. The majority would not support the government forcibly shutting down CNBC, Fox, or CBS. There are strains of civil & political culture that are pervasive enough to qualify as 'universal' in America.

What I have a problem with is when they host conventions, they invite right wing politicians who don't even talk about gun rights and just blabber on about their political platforms. They're becoming more and more intertwined with the GOP, instead of just simply focusing on guns. That's my issue.

Hey I agree...I do not want to go to a Star Wars convention and hear someone talk about Disney princesses or the next Marvel movie.

2) Just because a policy track makes sense at one time does not mean it makes sense now. With guns there is some gun-control that makes sense.

The problem has been it's so narrow it's ridiculous. Simply banning people from carrying guns in public is now an assault on the 2nd amendment. ANY regulation it seems is insane, even limiting the amount of bullets per clip in an AR15 (which one Conservative politician at first said was ok but then retracted that after everyone pissed on him over it).

Actually any further regulation is insane...including both examples you've brought up. We have had 30 years of concealed carry without any demonstrable reason to limit it. Even open carry does not correlate to any harm to public safety.

And limiting mag capacity on an AR-15 is stupid, irrational public policy. Research has shown time and time again that AR-15s are used in a statistically insignificant amount of violent crime. I've posted some of the research that shows that high capacity mag bans on rifles would have zero effect. So why ban them? It would be fraud, waste, and abuse of government resources that could be spent on other things.

About the only gun-control policy that would have any kind of effect (but still very slight) would be mag restrictions on handgun magazines. But the effect would be very modest and not worth the expenditure of time and resources.

We have simply addressed gun-control to a point that further policy pursuits down this line gets into the law of diminishing returns. It is time to address the real drivers of violent crime: economic opportunity and how mental health is stigmatized in this country.

And it has nothing to do with state government. Statewide elections (such as governor) are decided by Chicago due to the population density of Illinois. Your 'proof' actually deconstructs your own argument.

? What argument? I don't see why we can't both be right.

Because words mean things and there are these things called historical facts. 'Chicago Style Politics' is a reference to the Chicago political machine. If it was Illinois state government it would be 'Illinois Style Politics'. It would not be applicable to Obama if he had settled in Peoria or Danville or even Springfield. Had he moved there instead of Chicago the attribution would most likely be a positive indicator of dog-whistle racism. But he is the product of this particular political culture that has nothing to do state government.