Virginia Gun Rights Rally

[Deleted member 28227]

@VikingsGuy unequivocally the best civics teach you never had.

 

[memtb]

VikingsGuy, Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what your saying, pertaining to the 2nd Amendment. IMO, the 2nd Amendment has been “infringed upon” many times. It is and has been on a slippery slope toward total confiscation. Again, IMO, the “Founding Fathers” intended for us to be able to defend ourselves against the oppression of tyrannical government. It was not to provide some nimrod the ability to hunt Whitetails. Obviously, owning our own F-18, ect.,ect. may be out of reach for most of us....but the Founding Father’s intent was equal armament! Yes, that may sound absurd, given today’s technology.....but that was the intent.

So......where do you draw the line. Granted, we can’t compete with the US military, but all should be able to protect themselves and their families. In many locations across our nation, that “ability to protect” has been taken away. Those of the political left will “never” be satisfied until total confiscation is the law of the land. The line needs to be drawn! Those that cannot or refuse to see what a disarmed populace can be subjected to, are delusional at best ....complicit at worst! memtb

 

[Deleted member 28227]

VikingsGuy, Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what your saying, pertaining to the 2nd Amendment. IMO, the 2nd Amendment has been “infringed upon” many times. It is and has been on a slippery slope toward total confiscation. Again, IMO, the “Founding Fathers” intended for us to be able to defend ourselves against the oppression of tyrannical government. It was not to provide some nimrod the ability to hunt Whitetails. Obviously, owning our own F-18, ect.,ect. may be out of reach for most of us....but the Founding Father’s intent was equal armament! Yes, that may sound absurd, given today’s technology.....but that was the intent.

So......where do you draw the line. Granted, we can’t compete with the US military, but all should be able to protect themselves and their families. In many locations across our nation, that “ability to protect” has been taken away. Those of the political left will “never” be satisfied until total confiscation is the law of the land. The line needs to be drawn! Those that cannot or refuse to see what a disarmed populace can be subjected to, are delusional at best ....complicit at worst! memtb

If the intent was the ability to defend one's self against a tyrannical government, and the intent was to have parity and that is the interpretation we are going with then ipso facto I should be able to buy nuclear weapons.

As you state, obviously that is not feasible. I'm not sure where the line should... I waffle back and forth.

I think some on the left won't be satisfied until total confiscation, but that is a tiny tiny minority. They only countries in the world that totally ban guns are Cambodia and North Korea + some islands. The law of diminishing returns suggest there is a point at which "the left" will decide further pursuing gun legislation is no longer worth the cost. I actually think we are closer to this point then not, my guess is the slippery slope ends somewhere around New Zealand, and probably no further than Australia.

That is not to say that I want the US to have Australia's gun laws, I just think that is the actual worst case scenario.

 

[JLS]

If the intent was the ability to defend one's self against a tyrannical government, and the intent was to have parity and that is the interpretation we are going with then ipso facto I should be able to by nuclear weapons.

As you state, obviously that is not feasible. I'm not sure where the line should... I waffle back and forth.

I think some on the left won't be satisfied until total confiscation, but that is a tiny tiny minority. They only countries in the world that totally ban guns are Cambodia and North Korea + some islands. The law of diminishing returns suggest there is a point at which "the left" will decide further pursuing gun legislation is no longer worth the cost. I actually think we are closer to this point then not, my guess is the slippery slope ends somewhere around New Zealand, and probably no further than Australia.

That is not to say that I want the US to have Australia's gun laws, I just think that is the actual worst case scenario.

Commie

 

[JLS]

In modern jurisprudence most clear unconstitutional overreaches are stayed by lower courts before the laws are even put in effect, so this is less worrisome given that active 2A litigators.

This is a super important point that shouldn't be overlooked. Some of these "Constitutional" sheriffs seem to think they alone are the checks and balances against unconstitutional laws. Laws that are truly unconstitutional are litigated before the ink is dry from codification. As @VikingsGuy pointed out, a truly unconstitutional law is blocked until a definitive ruling can be reached.

 

[3855WIN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1220090933179535366

 

[VikingsGuy]

VikingsGuy, Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what your saying, pertaining to the 2nd Amendment. IMO, the 2nd Amendment has been “infringed upon” many times. It is and has been on a slippery slope toward total confiscation. Again, IMO, the “Founding Fathers” intended for us to be able to defend ourselves against the oppression of tyrannical government. It was not to provide some nimrod the ability to hunt Whitetails. Obviously, owning our own F-18, ect.,ect. may be out of reach for most of us....but the Founding Father’s intent was equal armament! Yes, that may sound absurd, given today’s technology.....but that was the intent.

So......where do you draw the line. Granted, we can’t compete with the US military, but all should be able to protect themselves and their families. In many locations across our nation, that “ability to protect” has been taken away. Those of the political left will “never” be satisfied until total confiscation is the law of the land. The line needs to be drawn! Those that cannot or refuse to see what a disarmed populace can be subjected to, are delusional at best ....complicit at worst! memtb

A number of things to unpack, so sorry if this isn’t clear - but here goes . . .

I don’t think “infringed upon” is a great way to think of SCOTUS limitations to the Bill of Rights - as it by definition incorporates the concept of “wrongfully” - and since the SCOTUS defines the right, laws consistent with SCOTUS can’t be infringements.

All “rights” have meets and bounds including 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A, etc. this is nothing new, and this certainly nothing I deny. There are limitations on 2A rights already. Some of them deemed lawful by SCOTUS, some deemed unlawful by SCOTUS and some still under question and working their way through the legal system, as Heller is relatively new on the scale of constitutional jurisprudence.

My point on slippery slope is that every right is on a continuum, so it is not a helpful marker for considering various proposals. As already referenced above, where is the line between nukes, Apache helicopters, portable rocket launchers, RPGs, machine guns, AK platform, semi auto shotguns, semi auto handguns, lever action rifles, 3 round in a mag, 10 rounds in a mag, 20 rounds in mag? At some point a line must be drawn, whether that line is drawn at the right place is a debatable point, but calling every choice wrong because we are on a slippery slope is illogical/not helpful unless your positions starts with nukes are OK so everything else is too.

What the founders wanted is a tricky area - there are papers drafted at the time by the “founders” that called out the right to hunt to feed oneself and family as the primary reason to secure the right to arms, papers that suggest a personal right to protect oneself from tyranny, papers that suggest a right to participate in a state militia but no personal right, papers that suggest a right to fight the federal governement but not the state government. About the only angle that didn’t get much attention at the time was the right to protect one's self from criminals - which ironically a significant basis is for Heller. Also, there were founders who put down popular rebellions at gun point (paging Mr. Washington). There were founders who believed that the constitution was a strict and limited document akin to a commercial contract and others who viewed it as a grand experiment they knew had to change as the nation/experiment grew. So which of those founders do you wish me to cite to declare my answer is correct? Personally I tend to be a pragmatic textualist, but I am just one opinion.

As for the, we keep our guns to keep democracy (wolverine!) angle, I am not that enamored with it. Few successful revolutions in the last 100 years were won by individuals with common guns - typically the tide is turned by non-violent resistance or by violence when portions of the military join the people and bring their weapons with them or a foreign actor provides military weapons to the revolutionaries.

I agree that some will not be happy until all guns are gone, but frankly I don’t think it is to suppress your right to violent revolution - it is because as long as it scares voters enough to vote left it is a useful tool towards driving leftist legislation on other topics, when it stops being an easy way to scare soccer moms/dads into being reliable left-leaning voters they will drop it and move on to something else. (Frankly, like Reagan and abortion - he didn’t care about Roe, but it was a very convenient to latch on to a bunch of catholic voters that tended to vote Dem at the time)

And I agree, lines need to be drawn - I am just suggesting the lines need to be drawn persuasively with logic and not pseudo-historical rhetoric. Guns have to be viewed as less scary, not 50BMG to a block party. I don’t have all the answers, I just encourage folks to deeply and carefully read history and legal theory before slapping bumpersticker slogans onto a very complex issue; and to seek to constructively understand the concerns and beliefs of those on the other side. They are the majority, we are the minority, it’s time we set rhetoric aside and actual built support for our views.

 

[VikingsGuy]

As an aside, thanks to all those on this thread telling me I am wrong and wimpy and just a damn lawyer, you are bringing neffa3 and I closer together (although truth be told, I am not completely sure how I feel about this new found alignment )

 

[mtmiller]

As an aside, thanks to all those on this thread telling me I am wrong and wimpy and just a damn lawyer, you are bringing neffa3 and I closer together (although truth be told, I am not completely sure how I feel about this new found alignment )

Quite the contrary. Good for me to sit back, shut my trap and listen to smart people talk. I am enjoying, let’s see if I learn.

 

[Sytes]

Enjoying the various points of view.

I am not a fan of the arrogant crap talk about others because a differing view is present though, welcome to anonymous internet forum debate.
A vast difference between around a camp fire and yammering differing views, in the end, clanking beer cans or stainless cups. The arrogance some portray in various threads would be flat out snapped cartilage or tooth fairy $ - in person.

Weed out the blabber, get to the content shared and pretty good info shared by various people.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Well, despite a large and primarily peaceful protest, the VA senate passed its red flag bill along party lines anyway. Apparently a bunch of "due process" elements were added based on criticisms of the original. I have no idea what the VA house counterpart looks like, but this one has lots of "due process" elements. I would not vote for this as the time windows are too long, lack of state provided representation for the "respondent", an unnecessarily unilateral approach to unlimited extensions but only one early termination motion for respondent, insufficient standards for "due cause", and lack of reasonable standards on the state to hold the guns with care. But these are details for debate and negotiation - I wouldn't be surprised if a "fixed" version of this would pass due process muster. Here is the link to the text for those who want to read. Senate Bill

 

[memtb]

Quote from wllw1313: If the intent was the ability to defend one's self against a tyrannical government, and the intent was to have parity and that is the interpretation we are going with then ipso facto I should be able to buy nuclear.


Yes! While the Founding Fathers had a pretty good knowledge of the potential evil in men’s minds, they could not envision the gains in technology. Had they foreseen these technological advances.....perhaps they would have determined other means to protect “the people” from “the government”! memtb

 

[tjones]

Does “shall not be infringed upon” cover Trump’s bump stock ban? Asking for a friend.

Edited because I should not drive and type

 

[VikingsGuy]

Does “infringed on” cover Trump’s bump stock ban? Asking for a friend.

Probably not, as I don't see a section in the constitution that says, "The government shall not limit access to firearm accessories designed to avoid the constitutionally valid NFA." But if you see it please forward me the citation.

Every time we fret about teflon coated bullets and bumpstock toys we get one step closer to losing the support of the general public. Remember, despite an amazing lapse in collective memory, the personal right to bear arms against tyranny did not exist in a single appellate court ruling from 1789 until 2001. This new found right has existed for less than 20 years legally and it is one Judge Thomas heart attack and one Elizabeth Warren/Joe Biden appointee away from disappearing forever. Now would be a really good time to use good political and marketing skills to not unnecessarily antagonize 80% of society over stuff that doesn't matter.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Quote from wllw1313: If the intent was the ability to defend one's self against a tyrannical government, and the intent was to have parity and that is the interpretation we are going with then ipso facto I should be able to buy nuclear.


Yes! While the Founding Fathers had a pretty good knowledge of the potential evil in men’s minds, they could not envision the gains in technology. Had they foreseen these technological advances.....perhaps they would have determined other means to protect “the people” from “the government”! memtb

And the fact that there is no such thing as one unified mind of the Founding Fathers to guide us - their rationales and intents were all over the place, let alone the rationales and intents of hundreds of state legislators that actually did the ratifying - heck Connecticut, Georgia and Massachusetts didn't even ratify the Bill of Rights amendments until 1939. Our history is so much more complex than folks want to acknowledge.

 

[memtb]

And the fact that there is no such thing as one unified mind of the Founding Fathers to guide us - their rationales and intents were all over the place, let alone the rationales and intents of hundreds of state legislators that actually did the ratifying - heck Connecticut, Georgia and Massachusetts didn't even ratify the Bill of Rights amendments until 1939. Our history is so much more complex than folks want to acknowledge.

They were unified enough to give us, The a Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. While “not” marching in “lock step”, they still managed to give us the greatest document written by man. Observing Connecticut and Massachusetts of today......nothing would surprise, only disappoint me! As for Georgia....no answer to that one! memtb

 

[VikingsGuy]

They were unified enough to give us, The a Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. While “not” marching in “lock step”, they still managed to give us the greatest document written by man.

On this we agree! To this end, I have been trying to point out that these wonderful documents came out of excruciating compromise between men with a wide ranging view of how the world should work. We too should find this educated and nuanced skill, rather than the current tendency towards dogmatic (and often historically inaccurate) narratives and vilifying those who dare disagree.

If the framers had said, "“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the the individual to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” or "“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State Militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” we would have clarity.

But instead they said, “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.” Does this mean individual people? The people collectively through the previously referenced Militia? There is no clear reading presented by this construct, or clear intent if you read the many dozens of papers from the hundreds of "founders" who played a role in the passage of the Constitution.

So, we are left to either rally together to secure liberty through respectful compromise as the founders did, or to tear ourselves apart to flatter our own (often misapplied) sense of history. I choose the former.

 

[rwc101]

And the fact that there is no such thing as one unified mind of the Founding Fathers to guide us - their rationales and intents were all over the place, let alone the rationales and intents of hundreds of state legislators that actually did the ratifying - heck Connecticut, Georgia and Massachusetts didn't even ratify the Bill of Rights amendments until 1939. Our history is so much more complex than folks want to acknowledge.

Thank god somebody said it. One of my biggest pet peeves as a former history major is people talking about the "founding fathers" as if they shared a common understanding of what future they envisioned their fledgling nation.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am officially tapping out on this. Have fun to those who still wish to seek #300.

 

[tjones]

I am officially tapping out on this. Have fun to those who still wish to seek #300.

How many billable hours were in your posts and what does Fin owe you for being the voice of reason?