Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[TechTalk]

You're incorrect.  The purpose of the Second Amendment was to give the citizenry the ability to protect their liberties should the government take them away.

That BS argument is not part of the Constitution. It isn't supported by a reading of the other provisions contained in the Constitution nor the historical record of the debates in the Constitutional Convention and the First Congress which added the first amendments.

[TechTalk]

But Biden says that GM with Mary Barra at the helm are the leaders.

Oh jeez. Not this crap again. How much boredom from repetition before I'm going to need a nap is what I'm wondering right now.

[PeterAit]

Also, just as there was a wink and a nod to the demonstrators in Washington, there were wink and nods from politicians who supported anti-police action and doing away with laws against criminality.  This lead to riots and looting and burning. In both cases, illegal acts were encouraged by the powers that be.  It's one of the reasons the crime rates have gone up so dramatically.   

In comparing the BLM protests to Jan 6, one thing is usually overlooked. The BLM protesters had many legitimate and real grievances and were protesting in hopes of some justice and accountability. The Jan 6 protesters had no such thing, being driven by ignorance and false information (some of which came from Trump) and, let's face it, stupidity. I hope you can see the distinction.

[digitaldog]

Real photography news. At least news that may concern photographers like my photo school classmate who shot this album cover:

Nevermind baby’s child-porn lawsuit against Nirvana dismissed by judge
Elden can amend complaint but 10-year statute of limitations may doom his case.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/01/nevermind-babys-child-porn-lawsuit-against-nirvana-dismissed-by-judge/
Hope Weddle sleeps easier tonight.

[digitaldog]

As an American, I want GM to do good. 

English major? 😂

[digitaldog]

In comparing the BLM protests to Jan 6, one thing is usually overlooked. The BLM protesters had many legitimate and real grievances and were protesting in hopes of some justice and accountability. The Jan 6 protesters had no such thing, being driven by ignorance and false information (some of which came from Trump) and, let's face it, stupidity. I hope you can see the distinction.

+1! I do but the one in an unreality bubble will not. Wait for a comment that proves this...

[Robert Roaldi]

Real photography news. At least news that may concern photographers like my photo school classmate who shot this album cover:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/01/nevermind-babys-child-porn-lawsuit-against-nirvana-dismissed-by-judge/
Hope Weddle sleeps easier tonight.

Thanks, that was funny.

[Robert Roaldi]

...
Simply put, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people the means to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical.[/i]
https://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-isnt-about-hunting-or-self-defense-but-revolution/

Who decides when it becomes tyrannical?

[James Clark]

That BS argument is not part of the Constitution. It isn't supported by a reading of the other provisions contained in the Constitution nor the historical record of the debates in the Constitutional Convention and the First Congress which added the first amendments.

...or by the numerous USSC decisions that failed to recognize an individual right to bear arms for 200+ years until Heller, or the fact that the founders themselves recognized restrictive gun laws inside many of their own cities, or the whole first clause of the second amendment, etc. etc. etc. 

[TechTalk]

Even the Heller Decision only recognizes the individual right to posses a firearm for self-defense inside the home and only applies to individuals who are otherwise legally permitted to own a gun. It does not apply to individuals not permitted to legally own or posses a gun, like felons or someone adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

It doesn't assert an individual or collective right to take up arms against the government as the Constitution expressly prohibits any such action. Treason, rebellion, or insurrection are not rights sanctioned by the Constitution or any amendment nor is it the purpose of any amendment to sanction or protect such actions.

Simply put, one purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people the means to protect the government and the people from invasion, rebellion, and the tyranny of the mob. The overarching purpose of the Second Amendment, however, is the same as it is for the rest of the Constitution, which I might address at some later time.

[Chris Kern]

The Second Amendment is there to allow citizens as a last resort to stop a central government that has unconstitutionally taken their freedoms away.

Your understanding of U.S. law is on a par with your knowledge of U.S. history.  I recommend that you take time out from posting to read James Madison's notes on the Philadelphia constitutional convention and the relevant Second Amendment case law, then come back here and offer the other forum members your informed misinterpretations of both.

. . . keep in mind that since America is a Republic made up of sovereign states . . .

Actually, the original states relinquished their sovereignty when they ratified the constitution of 1787 and the subsequent ones when they became part of the United States.

[Alan Klein]

In comparing the BLM protests to Jan 6, one thing is usually overlooked. The BLM protesters had many legitimate and real grievances and were protesting in hopes of some justice and accountability. The Jan 6 protesters had no such thing, being driven by ignorance and false information (some of which came from Trump) and, let's face it, stupidity. I hope you can see the distinction.

No one is arguing about the right to protest either for BLM people or for Jan 6 people.  Free speech gives people the right to protest and make their grievances known to the government.

It's what occurred criminally that we're objecting to. There were no legitimate reasons for burning down and looting stores and fighting with police during or after the BLM demonstrations.  Nor were there legitimate reasons for breaking into the Capitol Building and damaging it and assaulting officers beyond the protest in the streets. 

The distinction is not between the causes.  Both are constitutionally protected speech.  The distinction is between legal and illegal acts related to each demonstration.  Both groups had the right to demonstrate.  It's not up to you to decide whether they should or what's stupid.  If that's allowed, you no longer have free speech.  It's been silenced.   It would be as if I wasn't allowed to make my beliefs known here.  What kind of a forum would that be? 

[digitaldog]

Wait for a comment that proves this...

Bingo; he is so predictable.

[Alan Klein]

Your understanding of U.S. law is on a par with your knowledge of U.S. history.  I recommend that you take time out from posting to read James Madison's notes on the Philadelphia constitutional convention and the relevant Second Amendment case law, then come back here and offer the other forum members your informed misinterpretations of both.

Actually, the original states relinquished their sovereignty when they ratified the constitution of 1787 and the subsequent ones when they became part of the United States.

I'll defer to this explanation by the Senior Editor of The Federalist. 

As an aside, I think our Civil Was was a perfect demonstration how the right to bear arms worked as the southern military forces joined with civilians in opposition to the central government.  And people in the north used their private weapons to join in defense of the central government.  The Second Amendment at work. 
https://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-isnt-about-hunting-or-self-defense-but-revolution/

[TechTalk]

The distinction is not between the causes.

The post to which you're pretending to reply was focused solely on the distinction between "the causes". Your reply is unresponsive to the post that your quoting... again.

It's not up to you to decide whether they should or what's stupid.  If that's allowed, you no longer have free speech.  It's been silenced.

It's not up to you to decide what someone else believes or what they find to be stupid. "If that's allowed, you no longer have free speech.  It's been silenced."

It would be as if I wasn't allowed to make my beliefs known here.  What kind of a forum would that be?

Less repetitious, less boring, and less exhausting. But, I would never favor limiting your freedom to express yourself.

[TechTalk]

I'll defer to this explanation by the Senior Editor of The Federalist. 

https://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/the-second-amendment-isnt-about-hunting-or-self-defense-but-revolution/

Why? I read the article. It's an incomplete set of simplistic talking points purporting to present two sides of a superficial argument.

The article is sparse and took little time to read because it never attempts to delve into any of the substantive core background historically, legally, or constitutionally of the Second Amendment. It's poorly reasoned and shallow fluff designed to appeal to those looking for affirmation of nonsense.

[Alan Klein]

The post to which you're pretending to reply was focused solely on the distinction between "the causes". Your reply is unresponsive to the post that your quoting... again.

It's not up to you to decide what someone else believes or what they find to be stupid. "If that's allowed, you no longer have free speech.  It's been silenced."

Less repetitious, less boring, and less exhausting. But, I would never favor limiting your freedom to express yourself.

Then why do you complain all the time when I express it?

[Alan Klein]

Why? I read the article. It's an incomplete set of simplistic talking points purporting to present two sides of a superficial argument.

The article is sparse and took little time to read because it never attempts to delve into any of the substantive core background historically, legally, or constitutionally of the Second Amendment. It's poorly reasoned and shallow fluff designed to appeal to those looking for affirmation of nonsense.

Well, since this isn't a course on the Constitution, we may have to leave it there.  You have your opinions and I have mine. 

[TechTalk]

Then why do you complain all the time when I express it?

Because it's repetitious, boring, and exhausting... often little more than a repetition of the same small set of simplistic talking points. Then there's the tried and true methods used to bait people into arguments that never go anywhere except in a circle.

Need more?

[Alan Klein]

Because it's repetitious, boring, and exhausting... often little more than a repetition of the same small set of simplistic talking points. Then there's the tried and true methods used to bait people into arguments that never go anywhere except in a circle.

Need more?

We're up to page 664.  How many new ideas have you expressed on all those pages?  Don't you think your points are the same set of talking points that circle around?