(05-02-2021 11:50 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This is a long-form account of his time at U Chicago from 2008 (before he was such a polarizing figure). It's interesting that there is nothing about this. There are passages here that suggest that he was quite evenhanded in his approach to teaching there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html

Quote:Liberals flocked to his classes, seeking refuge. After all, the professor was a progressive politician who backed child care subsidies and laws against racial profiling, and in a 1996 interview with the school newspaper sounded skeptical of President Bill Clinton’s efforts to reach across the aisle.

What a sad commentary on those students!

One suspects they were not actually liberals, but so-called "progressives". But if they graduated as actual liberals, the school did a great service to the country.

(05-02-2021 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:“On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Mr. Obama said.

But the liberal students did not necessarily find reassurance. “For people who thought they were getting a doctrinal, rah-rah experience, it wasn’t that kind of class,” said D. Daniel Sokol, a former student who now teaches law at the University of Florida at Gainesville.

To Obama's credit -- and again, a sad commentary on those particular students, who seem to have been seeking confirmation more than learning.

Quote:

(05-02-2021 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:But whether out of professorial reserve or budding political caution, Mr. Obama would not say so directly. “He surfaced all the competing points of view on Guinier’s proposals with total neutrality and equanimity,” Mr. Franklin said. “He just let the class debate the merits of them back and forth.”

It's bizarre that the only explanations the author can conceive for such a non-propagandistic approach are personality trait (defect?) and political calculation. While of course either might've been a factor, the most l likely explanation is simply that THAT'S HOW YOU TEACH LAW. The fact that the author seemingly has no awareness of this concept is disturbing.

(05-02-2021 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:While students appreciated Mr. Obama’s evenhandedness...

Weren't the previous paragraphs reporting the opposite?

(05-02-2021 01:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How much of the topic have you looked at in the then existing state protections for arms, in the Federalist papers, in any writings by the attendees of the 1787 Convention, or historical accounts?

My guess is that your opinion above has as much background work as your homework on the usage of semi autos in this country?

Tanq, I'm curious how you feel about #'s gun licensing proposal WRT a citizen's Constitutional rights. It's fine as long as the enforcement is reasonable or you don't like the idea of a license at all?

I think it negates the idea of a fundamental right.

What do you think about a similar proposal that requires explicit individual state permission to get an abortion? Or an explicit jndividual state permission to practice a specific religion?

I guess it's hard to compare guns to abortion and to the practice of religion.

Abortion is obviously tricky. I would say that gun violence is affecting we Americans' right to life and you may (rightly?) say that abortion is affecting a fetus' right as well. We then get into the issue of how many cells does an embryo have before it can be considered a person with inalienable rights? We've been down that path here with no resolution.

The main problem is that you cannot seemingly discern the idea of a 'right', let alone a 'fundamental right'.

You seemingly want to equate the actions -- the actions arent the definition of a fundamental right, let alone a right. The actions are *grouped* as a right , and grouped as fundamental to boot.

A singular document does that -- not your morally superior methodolgy of grading them.

My view is simple -- that document defines fundamental rights. And, as a fundamental right, they are accorded the same level of view in relation to government intereference.

You discard that view in light of *your* own specific grading of them. Again, a typically progressive view -- cry like the wind for the fundamental rights that you support, then decry those that you dont as 'lesser'.

Quote:In terms of the practice of religion I don't really see how the practice of your religion affects another American's rights.

I am stating that your view of having to obtain government permission to exercise a fundamental right eviscerates the meaning of the term 'fundamental right'. But apparently not in your viewpoint where a subjective view of the rights enumerated is paramount. Again, a typical progressive approach the concept of a right, let alone a fundamental right.

Quote:

Quote:The idea of a fundamental right is that the default is that a person may be able to enjoy that activity *unless* the government can show an extraordinary reason not to.

A licensing scheme like that proposed turns the burden completely on its head.

*If* keeping arms was *not* a fundamental right, the system might make sense. But pragmatically it would make sense only if each jurisdiction implemented a 'shall issue' means to fo so, That is, implementing an objective criteria that is not out of this world to reach, and if reached the state has to issue.

Given the reluctance of blue jurisdictions to even achieve that, I think that system would be ripe for misuse.

But in terms of a Constitutional right, at least for commonly used firearms, the idea of a license to exercise what should be a dd facto right cuts in z major way against the core concept of a right.

#'s seems to be the closest to a Constitutional scholar that we have here... it seems that he's comfortable with the licensing.

Good for #s. It still doesnt explain away the concept of obtaining government permission to exercise a fundamental right.

By the way, did you know I AmJoured my Con Law section?

(05-02-2021 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What about expanding the type of sales that require background checks?

(05-02-2021 01:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Tanq, I'm curious how you feel about #'s gun licensing proposal WRT a citizen's Constitutional rights. It's fine as long as the enforcement is reasonable or you don't like the idea of a license at all?

I think it negates the idea of a fundamental right.

What do you think about a similar proposal that requires explicit individual state permission to get an abortion? Or an explicit jndividual state permission to practice a specific religion?

I guess it's hard to compare guns to abortion and to the practice of religion.

Abortion is obviously tricky. I would say that gun violence is affecting we Americans' right to life and you may (rightly?) say that abortion is affecting a fetus' right as well. We then get into the issue of how many cells does an embryo have before it can be considered a person with inalienable rights? We've been down that path here with no resolution.

The main problem is that you cannot seemingly discern the idea of a 'right', let alone a 'fundamental right'.

You seemingly want to equate the actions -- the actions arent the definition of a fundamental right, let alone a right. The actions are *grouped* as a right , and grouped as fundamental to boot.

A singular document does that -- not your morally superior methodolgy of grading them.

My view is simple -- that document defines fundamental rights. And, as a fundamental right, they are accorded the same level of view in relation to government intereference.

You discard that view in light of *your* own specific grading of them. Again, a typically progressive view -- cry like the wind for the fundamental rights that you support, then decry those that you dont as 'lesser'.

Quote:In terms of the practice of religion I don't really see how the practice of your religion affects another American's rights.

I am stating that your view of having to obtain government permission to exercise a fundamental right eviscerates the meaning of the term 'fundamental right'. But apparently not in your viewpoint where a subjective view of the rights enumerated is paramount. Again, a typical progressive approach the concept of a right, let alone a fundamental right.

Quote:

Quote:The idea of a fundamental right is that the default is that a person may be able to enjoy that activity *unless* the government can show an extraordinary reason not to.

A licensing scheme like that proposed turns the burden completely on its head.

*If* keeping arms was *not* a fundamental right, the system might make sense. But pragmatically it would make sense only if each jurisdiction implemented a 'shall issue' means to fo so, That is, implementing an objective criteria that is not out of this world to reach, and if reached the state has to issue.

Given the reluctance of blue jurisdictions to even achieve that, I think that system would be ripe for misuse.

But in terms of a Constitutional right, at least for commonly used firearms, the idea of a license to exercise what should be a dd facto right cuts in z major way against the core concept of a right.

#'s seems to be the closest to a Constitutional scholar that we have here... it seems that he's comfortable with the licensing.

Good for #s. It still doesnt explain away the concept of obtaining government permission to exercise a fundamental right.

By the way, did you know I AmJoured my Con Law section?

You DEFINITELY know more about Constitutional law than me, Tanq. I didn't even go to law school!!!

I'm trying to provide my POV regarding the question that you brought up... not trying to present a legal argument. And to that you may say that I have no business in taking part in this discussion without a stronger background and I wouldn't be offended by that. I'm certainly not going to get into a debate about the definition of a right vs. a privilege with you.

Feel free to school me on this as it's not my area of specialty. I guess I thought that I could give a point of view without you treating it like I was delivering a strident opinion.

I am picturing a cage fight between #'s (He practiced and taught Constitutional Law for decades!) vs. Tanq (He AmJour'ed ConLaw in school!) over this topic. Because #'s is seemingly comfortable with his proposed licensing legislation would you also suggest that he is clueless as to the definition of a right?

(05-02-2021 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have no problem with something like this.

We have a shooter's license, analogous to a driver's license. You must have one in order to buy or possess guns or ammo. You take a course on gun safety, pass a written (or possibly oral) exam, and perform a satisfactory demonstration test. The license is basically a baby CCL. It comes in degrees, with special endorsements for things like scary-looking guns that can shoot a lot of bullets. It is linked to the criminal database. Commit a violent crime, and your ticket is suspended or pulled altogether depending on the severity.

Law enforcement sees you out with a gun, they can ask for your license. You don't have one, and you go to jail. That allows some pre-emptive action on the part of LEOs. This could go a long way toward cleaning up things like gang shootings.

Now, that is a common sense gun law.

Something tells me a proposal similar to this has been put forth by Dems. It’s not at all like the only Democratic proposal has been to confiscate x, y, z type guns.

What about expanding the type of sales that require background checks?

(05-02-2021 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think it negates the idea of a fundamental right.

What do you think about a similar proposal that requires explicit individual state permission to get an abortion? Or an explicit jndividual state permission to practice a specific religion?

I guess it's hard to compare guns to abortion and to the practice of religion.

Abortion is obviously tricky. I would say that gun violence is affecting we Americans' right to life and you may (rightly?) say that abortion is affecting a fetus' right as well. We then get into the issue of how many cells does an embryo have before it can be considered a person with inalienable rights? We've been down that path here with no resolution.

The main problem is that you cannot seemingly discern the idea of a 'right', let alone a 'fundamental right'.

You seemingly want to equate the actions -- the actions arent the definition of a fundamental right, let alone a right. The actions are *grouped* as a right , and grouped as fundamental to boot.

A singular document does that -- not your morally superior methodolgy of grading them.

My view is simple -- that document defines fundamental rights. And, as a fundamental right, they are accorded the same level of view in relation to government intereference.

You discard that view in light of *your* own specific grading of them. Again, a typically progressive view -- cry like the wind for the fundamental rights that you support, then decry those that you dont as 'lesser'.

Quote:In terms of the practice of religion I don't really see how the practice of your religion affects another American's rights.

I am stating that your view of having to obtain government permission to exercise a fundamental right eviscerates the meaning of the term 'fundamental right'. But apparently not in your viewpoint where a subjective view of the rights enumerated is paramount. Again, a typical progressive approach the concept of a right, let alone a fundamental right.

Quote:

Quote:The idea of a fundamental right is that the default is that a person may be able to enjoy that activity *unless* the government can show an extraordinary reason not to.

A licensing scheme like that proposed turns the burden completely on its head.

*If* keeping arms was *not* a fundamental right, the system might make sense. But pragmatically it would make sense only if each jurisdiction implemented a 'shall issue' means to fo so, That is, implementing an objective criteria that is not out of this world to reach, and if reached the state has to issue.

Given the reluctance of blue jurisdictions to even achieve that, I think that system would be ripe for misuse.

But in terms of a Constitutional right, at least for commonly used firearms, the idea of a license to exercise what should be a dd facto right cuts in z major way against the core concept of a right.

#'s seems to be the closest to a Constitutional scholar that we have here... it seems that he's comfortable with the licensing.

Good for #s. It still doesnt explain away the concept of obtaining government permission to exercise a fundamental right.

By the way, did you know I AmJoured my Con Law section?

You DEFINITELY know more about Constitutional law than me, Tanq. I didn't even go to law school!!!

I'm trying to provide my POV regarding the question that you brought up... not trying to present a legal argument. And to that you may say that I have no business in taking part in this discussion without a stronger background and I wouldn't be offended by that. I'm certainly not going to get into a debate about the definition of a right vs. a privilege with you.

Feel free to school me on this as it's not my area of specialty. I guess I thought that I could give a point of view without you treating it like I was delivering a strident opinion.

I am picturing a cage fight between #'s (He practiced and taught Constitutional Law for decades!) vs. Tanq (He AmJour'ed ConLaw in school!) over this topic. Because #'s is seemingly comfortable with his proposed licensing legislation would you also suggest that he is clueless as to the definition of a right?

As opposed to your snide rendition, I am very comfortable in my ConLaw chops. Funny how you cant ever get the scent of douche out of your replies.

Quote:He may be 'comfortable' with that, but it doesnt address the issue as a matter of a Constitutional right. I dont see anything in his proposal that addresses that aspect.

In some respects, if one were able to extricate the Constitutional right out of the issue, ina pragmatic sense I would be 'comfortable' with it.

But, it is a horrendous idea with respect to the ideal of what is or is not a right under the Constitution. I mean, you gave us a great rendition of a chop shop version of what a right is, and how different rights should and shouldnt be treated as such.

But leave it to you to do the previous response I guess..... figures....

Please do tell, what is the concept of a 'right' in your world, 93? One that you need to petition the government to do? A simple yes or no to that last question will be sufficient.....

Quote:And it is easy to compare bearing arms to religion -- they are both explicit fundamental rights in the United States. Funny that. I guess different actions for different rights is the rule of the day in your perspective ---- fun fun fun

(05-02-2021 02:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I guess it's hard to compare guns to abortion and to the practice of religion.

Abortion is obviously tricky. I would say that gun violence is affecting we Americans' right to life and you may (rightly?) say that abortion is affecting a fetus' right as well. We then get into the issue of how many cells does an embryo have before it can be considered a person with inalienable rights? We've been down that path here with no resolution.

The main problem is that you cannot seemingly discern the idea of a 'right', let alone a 'fundamental right'.

You seemingly want to equate the actions -- the actions arent the definition of a fundamental right, let alone a right. The actions are *grouped* as a right , and grouped as fundamental to boot.

A singular document does that -- not your morally superior methodolgy of grading them.

My view is simple -- that document defines fundamental rights. And, as a fundamental right, they are accorded the same level of view in relation to government intereference.

You discard that view in light of *your* own specific grading of them. Again, a typically progressive view -- cry like the wind for the fundamental rights that you support, then decry those that you dont as 'lesser'.

Quote:In terms of the practice of religion I don't really see how the practice of your religion affects another American's rights.

I am stating that your view of having to obtain government permission to exercise a fundamental right eviscerates the meaning of the term 'fundamental right'. But apparently not in your viewpoint where a subjective view of the rights enumerated is paramount. Again, a typical progressive approach the concept of a right, let alone a fundamental right.

Quote:#'s seems to be the closest to a Constitutional scholar that we have here... it seems that he's comfortable with the licensing.

Good for #s. It still doesnt explain away the concept of obtaining government permission to exercise a fundamental right.

By the way, did you know I AmJoured my Con Law section?

You DEFINITELY know more about Constitutional law than me, Tanq. I didn't even go to law school!!!

I'm trying to provide my POV regarding the question that you brought up... not trying to present a legal argument. And to that you may say that I have no business in taking part in this discussion without a stronger background and I wouldn't be offended by that. I'm certainly not going to get into a debate about the definition of a right vs. a privilege with you.

Feel free to school me on this as it's not my area of specialty. I guess I thought that I could give a point of view without you treating it like I was delivering a strident opinion.

I am picturing a cage fight between #'s (He practiced and taught Constitutional Law for decades!) vs. Tanq (He AmJour'ed ConLaw in school!) over this topic. Because #'s is seemingly comfortable with his proposed licensing legislation would you also suggest that he is clueless as to the definition of a right?

As opposed to your snide rendition, I am very comfortable in my ConLaw chops. Funny how you cant ever get the scent of douche out of your replies.

I’m comfortable with your chops too. I was pointing out that both of you have much more expertise on this topic than anybody else on this board.

Quote:He may be 'comfortable' with that, but it doesnt address the issue as a matter of a Constitutional right. I dont see anything in his proposal that addresses that aspect.

In some respects, if one were able to extricate the Constitutional right out of the issue, ina pragmatic sense I would be 'comfortable' with it.

But, it is a horrendous idea with respect to the ideal of what is or is not a right under the Constitution. I mean, you gave us a great rendition of a chop shop version of what a right is, and how different rights should and shouldnt be treated as such.

But leave it to you to do the previous response I guess..... figures....

Please do tell, what is the concept of a 'right' in your world, 93? One that you need to petition the government to do? A simple yes or no to that last question will be sufficient.....

No.

Quote:And it is easy to compare bearing arms to religion -- they are both explicit fundamental rights in the United States. Funny that. I guess different actions for different rights is the rule of the day in your perspective ---- fun fun fun

I made the point that your right to a gun may impinge upon my right to life whereas your right to freedom of religion doesn’t impinge on my rights at all. I’m not speaking as a constitutional scholar, just telling you what makes sense to me

(05-02-2021 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not sure why Lad and 93 would discern petulance in my posting this. I think articles about the upcoming mid-term elections are important. I wonder who would think them unimportant, or as right wing talking points.

Presented for your edification:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-leads-texas-election-after-robocall-claim-she-killed-husband-with-covid/ar-BB1ghzzr?li=BBnb7Kz

We don’t know who is responsible for the robocall.

You post a ton of articles with commentary that doesn’t seem to want to spark actual conversation. Instead you add commentary that tries to paint Dems/liberals in as negative of a light as possible. You’re just slinging mud and it seems like you’re only hoping to get someone to bite your troll-light posts.

(05-02-2021 03:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Finally, we have a discussion of proposed gun laws and the legal background behind them. I am learning something with almost every post, and Ham and Tanq have brought up some good points I hadn't thought of.

I have always heard that the reason the State can suspend your DL is because driving is a privilege, not a right.

(05-02-2021 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not sure why Lad and 93 would discern petulance in my posting this. I think articles about the upcoming mid-term elections are important. I wonder who would think them unimportant, or as right wing talking points.

Presented for your edification:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-leads-texas-election-after-robocall-claim-she-killed-husband-with-covid/ar-BB1ghzzr?li=BBnb7Kz

We don’t know who is responsible for the robocall.

You post a ton of articles with commentary that doesn’t seem to want to spark actual conversation. Instead you add commentary that tries to paint Dems/liberals in as negative of a light as possible. You’re just slinging mud and it seems like you’re only hoping to get someone to bite your troll-light posts.

There is zero in that post that is negative to Democrats or liberals, much less slinging mud. Perhaps the problem is in your own mind.

(05-02-2021 05:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not sure why Lad and 93 would discern petulance in my posting this. I think articles about the upcoming mid-term elections are important. I wonder who would think them unimportant, or as right wing talking points.

Presented for your edification:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-leads-texas-election-after-robocall-claim-she-killed-husband-with-covid/ar-BB1ghzzr?li=BBnb7Kz

We don’t know who is responsible for the robocall.

You post a ton of articles with commentary that doesn’t seem to want to spark actual conversation. Instead you add commentary that tries to paint Dems/liberals in as negative of a light as possible. You’re just slinging mud and it seems like you’re only hoping to get someone to bite your troll-light posts.

There is zero in that post that is negative to Democrats or liberals, much less slinging mud. Perhaps the problem is in your own mind.

Christ, what an exhausting post, and one that intentionally ignores and deflects from the larger point.

Given that my initial comment was made before the specific post you're referencing above, how in the world could it have included the post above?

Would it make you feel better if I was specific and said you often, but don't always, post articles with commentary...

(05-02-2021 02:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I guess it's hard to compare guns to abortion and to the practice of religion.

Abortion is obviously tricky. I would say that gun violence is affecting we Americans' right to life and you may (rightly?) say that abortion is affecting a fetus' right as well. We then get into the issue of how many cells does an embryo have before it can be considered a person with inalienable rights? We've been down that path here with no resolution.

The main problem is that you cannot seemingly discern the idea of a 'right', let alone a 'fundamental right'.

You seemingly want to equate the actions -- the actions arent the definition of a fundamental right, let alone a right. The actions are *grouped* as a right , and grouped as fundamental to boot.

A singular document does that -- not your morally superior methodolgy of grading them.

My view is simple -- that document defines fundamental rights. And, as a fundamental right, they are accorded the same level of view in relation to government intereference.

You discard that view in light of *your* own specific grading of them. Again, a typically progressive view -- cry like the wind for the fundamental rights that you support, then decry those that you dont as 'lesser'.

Quote:In terms of the practice of religion I don't really see how the practice of your religion affects another American's rights.

I am stating that your view of having to obtain government permission to exercise a fundamental right eviscerates the meaning of the term 'fundamental right'. But apparently not in your viewpoint where a subjective view of the rights enumerated is paramount. Again, a typical progressive approach the concept of a right, let alone a fundamental right.

Quote:#'s seems to be the closest to a Constitutional scholar that we have here... it seems that he's comfortable with the licensing.

Good for #s. It still doesnt explain away the concept of obtaining government permission to exercise a fundamental right.

By the way, did you know I AmJoured my Con Law section?

You DEFINITELY know more about Constitutional law than me, Tanq. I didn't even go to law school!!!

I'm trying to provide my POV regarding the question that you brought up... not trying to present a legal argument. And to that you may say that I have no business in taking part in this discussion without a stronger background and I wouldn't be offended by that. I'm certainly not going to get into a debate about the definition of a right vs. a privilege with you.

Feel free to school me on this as it's not my area of specialty. I guess I thought that I could give a point of view without you treating it like I was delivering a strident opinion.

I am picturing a cage fight between #'s (He practiced and taught Constitutional Law for decades!) vs. Tanq (He AmJour'ed ConLaw in school!) over this topic. Because #'s is seemingly comfortable with his proposed licensing legislation would you also suggest that he is clueless as to the definition of a right?

As opposed to your snide rendition, I am very comfortable in my ConLaw chops. Funny how you cant ever get the scent of douche out of your replies.

I’m comfortable with your chops too. I was pointing out that both of you have much more expertise on this topic than anybody else on this board.

Quote:He may be 'comfortable' with that, but it doesnt address the issue as a matter of a Constitutional right. I dont see anything in his proposal that addresses that aspect.

In some respects, if one were able to extricate the Constitutional right out of the issue, ina pragmatic sense I would be 'comfortable' with it.

But, it is a horrendous idea with respect to the ideal of what is or is not a right under the Constitution. I mean, you gave us a great rendition of a chop shop version of what a right is, and how different rights should and shouldnt be treated as such.

But leave it to you to do the previous response I guess..... figures....

Please do tell, what is the concept of a 'right' in your world, 93? One that you need to petition the government to do? A simple yes or no to that last question will be sufficient.....

No.

Quote:And it is easy to compare bearing arms to religion -- they are both explicit fundamental rights in the United States. Funny that. I guess different actions for different rights is the rule of the day in your perspective ---- fun fun fun

I made the point that your right to a gun may impinge upon my right to life whereas your right to freedom of religion doesn’t impinge on my rights at all. I’m not speaking as a constitutional scholar, just telling you what makes sense to me

(05-03-2021 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My right to keep a gun impinges no one’s rights I hate to tell you. The interesting thing here is that you are conflating the right to keep arms with actions in using such arms in an illegal manner.

I have zero right to use arms except in a self-defense mode,

But you apparently here conflate the act of keeping an arm with the act of using it wrongly.

(05-03-2021 08:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My right to keep a gun impinges no one’s rights I hate to tell you. The interesting thing here is that you are conflating the right to keep arms with actions in using such arms in an illegal manner.

I have zero right to use arms except in a self-defense mode,

But you apparently here conflate the act of keeping an arm with the act of using it wrongly.

I am glad Tanq has brought this distinction to the forefront.

(05-03-2021 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My right to keep a gun impinges no one’s rights I hate to tell you. The interesting thing here is that you are conflating the right to keep arms with actions in using such arms in an illegal manner.
I have zero right to use arms except in a self-defense mode,
But you apparently here conflate the act of keeping an arm with the act of using it wrongly.

(05-02-2021 10:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Look... your Constitutional Law chops outweigh everybody else's on this forum. So I definitely listen to your opinions on this matter and try to learn from it.
I also recognize the incredible potential for bias in your opinions given previous statements (ones that I consider frankly outlandish) that you have made on this forum ("Kamala is the most reprehensible person on the face of the planet, etc.")

(05-03-2021 10:21 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My right to keep a gun impinges no one’s rights I hate to tell you. The interesting thing here is that you are conflating the right to keep arms with actions in using such arms in an illegal manner.

I have zero right to use arms except in a self-defense mode,

But you apparently here conflate the act of keeping an arm with the act of using it wrongly.

I am glad Tanq has brought this distinction to the forefront.

That is an excellent point.... and said far more clearly than I ever have

As a right, it is up to the government to, through specific due process, demonstrate that I, an individual cannot exercise this right appropriately. The idea that collectively we cannot exercise this right is proven false 100+mm times per day, every day.

And before 'the left' on this issue starts in with the number of deaths, if 100mm gun owners shoot 'nobody' today and 1 person shoots 5.... that is 100mm vs 1, and 350mm people NOT shot vs 5 people shot. Even though it is still overwhelmingly one sided, we most often are told we need to focus on the 5.

I still do go back to the idea that the reason we have to have 2/3rds and 3/4 in order to change the Constitution is that this is a means of demonstrating that the current make-up of the states WOULD STILL ratify the Constitution, as amended. Remember that this right was specifically enumerated for the very purpose of ensuring that the government WOULDN'T DO precisely what the left on this issue is trying to do.

How anyone gets around that and thinks its 'okay' is very much beyond me.

And I'm no Constitutional Scholar and not often even big on the details... but I'm also still fairly educated.

I have yet to hear one single person from the left on this issue, including some of the greatest minds out there... tell me why the requirement to amend the constitution shouldn't apply here.

Quote:The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

(05-02-2021 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That scenario seems laughably far-fetched to me.

How much of the topic have you looked at in the then existing state protections for arms, in the Federalist papers, in any writings by the attendees of the 1787 Convention, or historical accounts?

My guess is that your opinion above has as much background work as your homework on the usage of semi autos in this country?

Tanq, I'm curious how you feel about #'s gun licensing proposal WRT a citizen's Constitutional rights. It's fine as long as the enforcement is reasonable or you don't like the idea of a license at all?

I think it negates the idea of a fundamental right.

What do you think about a similar proposal that requires explicit individual state permission to get an abortion? Or an explicit jndividual state permission to practice a specific religion?

I guess it's hard to compare guns to abortion and to the practice of religion.

Abortion is obviously tricky. I would say that gun violence is affecting we Americans' right to life and you may (rightly?) say that abortion is affecting a fetus' right as well. We then get into the issue of how many cells does an embryo have before it can be considered a person with inalienable rights? We've been down that path here with no resolution.

In terms of the practice of religion I don't really see how the practice of your religion affects another American's rights.

Quote:The idea of a fundamental right is that the default is that a person may be able to enjoy that activity *unless* the government can show an extraordinary reason not to.

A licensing scheme like that proposed turns the burden completely on its head.

*If* keeping arms was *not* a fundamental right, the system might make sense. But pragmatically it would make sense only if each jurisdiction implemented a 'shall issue' means to fo so, That is, implementing an objective criteria that is not out of this world to reach, and if reached the state has to issue.

Given the reluctance of blue jurisdictions to even achieve that, I think that system would be ripe for misuse.

But in terms of a Constitutional right, at least for commonly used firearms, the idea of a license to exercise what should be a dd facto right cuts in z major way against the core concept of a right.

#'s seems to be the closest to a Constitutional scholar that we have here... it seems that he's comfortable with the licensing.

(05-03-2021 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 10:21 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My right to keep a gun impinges no one’s rights I hate to tell you. The interesting thing here is that you are conflating the right to keep arms with actions in using such arms in an illegal manner.

I have zero right to use arms except in a self-defense mode,

But you apparently here conflate the act of keeping an arm with the act of using it wrongly.

I am glad Tanq has brought this distinction to the forefront.

That is an excellent point.... and said far more clearly than I ever have

As a right, it is up to the government to, through specific due process, demonstrate that I, an individual cannot exercise this right appropriately. The idea that collectively we cannot exercise this right is proven false 100+mm times per day, every day.

And before 'the left' on this issue starts in with the number of deaths, if 100mm gun owners shoot 'nobody' today and 1 person shoots 5.... that is 100mm vs 1, and 350mm people NOT shot vs 5 people shot. Even though it is still overwhelmingly one sided, we most often are told we need to focus on the 5.

I still do go back to the idea that the reason we have to have 2/3rds and 3/4 in order to change the Constitution is that this is a means of demonstrating that the current make-up of the states WOULD STILL ratify the Constitution, as amended. Remember that this right was specifically enumerated for the very purpose of ensuring that the government WOULDN'T DO precisely what the left on this issue is trying to do.

How anyone gets around that and thinks its 'okay' is very much beyond me.

And I'm no Constitutional Scholar and not often even big on the details... but I'm also still fairly educated.

I have yet to hear one single person from the left on this issue, including some of the greatest minds out there... tell me why the requirement to amend the constitution shouldn't apply here.

To be fair, how hard are you actually looking? I've definitely seen arguments that focus on the "prefatory clause" component that focuses on the "well regulated militia" and how that allows for the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to be legsilated.

I mean, I did a really quick google search and here is Cornell Law, quoting US vs Miller:

Quote:The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

I do think Tanq brings up a very good point, but not one that makes it clear that no infringement on the right to bear arms is absolute. The court has established a preface already, as has been discussed already.