2nd Amendment

[Ecmandu]

The 14th amendment means ALL as you just quoted!!

Think about this constitutionally ...

You ONLY give weapons to the military and police (for free)... but not to any other citizen... even though YOU YOURSELF stated that the 14th amendment states ALL.

I’d kick your ass in a Supreme Court debate ....

Bring it on. By the way, I had to learn how to out debate omniscient beings to live every second of everyday to stop being sent to hell. So go for it. This is the thing I’m best at.

[obsrvr524]

The 14th amendment means ALL as you just quoted!!

Think about this constitutionally ...

You ONLY give weapons to the military and police (for free)... but not to any other citizen... even though YOU YOURSELF stated that the 14th amendment states ALL.

No. Weapons are NOT "given" to the military citizens. They are provided for government military use. The solders and police do NOT own those weapons.

I’d kick your ass in a Supreme Court debate ....

You would be doing good to merely get through an opening statement.

I had to learn how to out debate omniscient beings to live every second of everyday to stop being sent to hell. So go for it. This is the thing I’m best at.

I suggest that you try to stop embarrassing yourself. Your bubble of belief doesn't require that you be superior to all people. RESET. And stop attacking other people (your omniscient beings must have mentioned that to you). Admiration stems from humility.

[Ecmandu]

You’re somewhat correct. Against the constitution, the government at anytime can confiscate those weapons.

The problem with the second amendment is that it has no explicit or implicit property rights. It just says ALL.

[obsrvr524]

You’re somewhat correct. Against the constitution, the government at anytime can confiscate those weapons.

It doesn't "confiscate" the weapons. It OWNS them and as far as I know it takes them back immediately after government service. It doesn't violate the Constitution in the slightest.

The problem with the second amendment is that it has no explicit or implicit property rights. It just says ALL.

It says "ALL" what? It doesn't say "all weapons". As you said - they didn't know about newer weapons. They could not have explicated those weapons. They said "arms" (emphasizing the need for a militia - a non-federally organized military). So SCOTUS must try to interpret what they meant at the time. Did they mean weapons of mass destruction? Very probably not.

[iambiguous]

the text of the law says that the right to bear arms can't be infringed
that means that if you got a gun in your hand, nobody can take it from you
doesn't mean everyone gets a gun
idiot

The text says this:

"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."

Some of course read it this way:

"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."

Others read it more this way:

"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."

I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.

Let's call this the "psychology of objectivism".

Well yes, because you are a communist with an agenda, and reason is meaningless to you.

Let's just say you know as much about me as you do the 2nd amendment.

Even if you emphasize the militia part, still you have not shown what connection this makes with the right to keep and bear not being impeded. When asked, you fizzled off as usual.

It's not the militia part that some emphasize, it's the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.

And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being "well regulated" not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?

Really, explain that to me.

And then the part that objectivists of your ilk simply don't have the balls to acknowledge: how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some "my way or the highway" political dogma.

[obsrvr524]

I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.

Let's call this the "psychology of objectivism".

That is NOT true.

What defenders (all of those you call "objectivists") are saying is that the SCOTUS is to fairly attempt to interpret what was originally intended. If something else is needed it is up to Congress to amend the Constitution.

As usual your default and derail to "objectivism" has nothing at all to do with any of this.

It's not the militia part that some emphasize, it's the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.

Wrong again. It says that the "militia" being well regulated, NOT the citizens.

And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being "well regulated" not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?

Political prejudices are irrelevant to the right for a "well regulated militia".

how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some "my way or the highway" political dogma.

Again - irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the rights exist - NOT who is "objectively" right or wrong.

[Ecmandu]

You’re somewhat correct. Against the constitution, the government at anytime can confiscate those weapons.

It doesn't "confiscate" the weapons. It OWNS them and as far as I know it takes them back immediately after government service. It doesn't violate the Constitution in the slightest.

The problem with the second amendment is that it has no explicit or implicit property rights. It just says ALL.

It says "ALL" what? It doesn't say "all weapons". As you said - they didn't know about newer weapons. They could not have explicated those weapons. They said "arms" (emphasizing the need for a militia - a non-federally organized military). So SCOTUS must try to interpret what they meant at the time. Did they mean weapons of mass destruction? Very probably not.

I’m far from talking about government service.

The American government confiscates (unused) weapons constantly from American citizens.

Think Waco, etc... not a shot fired, the government bombed the shit out of them. That’s just an extreme example though.

The government takes firearms away from people all the time.

Some people? Suicidal people. It’s “illegal” in the united states to own a firearm if you’ve ever reported having suicidal thoughts (for example)

I don’t know what constitution that you read.

[iambiguous]

I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.

Let's call this the "psychology of objectivism".

That is NOT true.

Well I guess that settles that then. For example, in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.

What defenders (all of those you call "objectivists") are saying is that the SCOTUS is to fairly attempt to interpret what was originally intended. If something else is needed it is up to Congress to amend the Constitution.

On the contrary, I'm not arguing that defenders are necessarily objectivists. I'm arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.

In fact I am an advocate myself for the right of American citizens to bear arms. I'm armed myself. It's just that I recognize that others, based on different sets of assumptions regarding what the words in the amendment mean, are also able to make reasonable arguments.

And that depending on whether the blue states or the red states are able to send more representatives to Congress, the legal parameters of "well regulated" are clearly political prejudices. Why on earth do you suppose that cases keep ending up in the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ted_States

Instead, I focus on the words "well regulated".

As usual your default and derail to "objectivism" has nothing at all to do with any of this.

No, as usual, from my point of view, you presume that your own understanding of all this is the the one and the only understanding that counts.

Consider:

How is this not applicable to you:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview regarding the 2nd amendment.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on the 2nd amendment expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about the 2nd amendment; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy regarding the 2nd amendment with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about the 2nd amendment with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own views about the 2nd amendment as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for truth regarding the 2nd amendment, has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

It's not the militia part that some emphasize, it's the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.

Wrong again. It says that the "militia" being well regulated, NOT the citizens.

Again, that's just your interpretation. Others insist that if the part about a well regulated militia wasn't important in regard to a cirizens right to own guns, the amendment would simply have read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being "well regulated" not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?

Political prejudices are irrelevant to the right for a "well regulated militia".

Once again, from your own doctrinaire, authoritarian mind, merely asserting it makes it so.

how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some "my way or the highway" political dogma.

Again - irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the rights exist - NOT who is "objectively" right or wrong.

Same thing. Every single word in the amendment must be understood only as you understand them. And how you came to understand them has nothing to do with the existential trajectory of the experiences, relationships and access to specific information and knowledge you happened upon in regard to gun ownership in America.

[obsrvr524]

I'll have to get back with you. I have that work, wife, and wealth issue (not necessarily in that order) plaguing me at the moment. But just quickly - you certainly were talking about government service even though you have other issues to address. I'll get to those later.

That goes for iambig too.

[obsrvr524]

I’m far from talking about government service.

The American government confiscates (unused) weapons constantly from American citizens.

Think Waco, etc... not a shot fired, the government bombed the shit out of them. That’s just an extreme example though.

The government takes firearms away from people all the time.

Some people? Suicidal people. It’s “illegal” in the united states to own a firearm if you’ve ever reported having suicidal thoughts (for example)

I don’t know what constitution that you read.

I don't know anything about "Waco" but the others are all matters that involve allowing criminals to own arms (should the bank robber be allowed to keep his gun). And I'm sure that they have all been brought to SCOTUS at one point or another. You might disagree with what SCOTUS decided was within constitutional law. But realize that it is only the US Constitution that allowed those issues to be addressed and decided upon. Get rid of the Constitution and those same issues get decided by random feudal lords and dictators. And I'm pretty sure they would make the same decisions without hesitation and they will also make those decisions ONLY against the people they don't like (no 14th amendment).

It is the US Constitution that allows for individual citizens to have their case examined at the highest level.

Should known criminals be allowed arms? I don't know for certain in the US, but usually a criminal at least partially loses citizen rights (else they couldn't be locked up). If you dig through it you could probably find something in the constitution's amendments that permitted Congress to pass laws to allow for the disenfranchisement of criminals (and mental patients). I'm sure there is a law in there that meets US Constitution requirements or at least comes close enough for SCOTUS to allow such disenfranchising. It would be an old argument settled long ago. Criminals are not allowed to vote either.

You can disagree with whatever SCOTUS had to say about it (I disagree with a few things) but they are a court that at least looks into it because the US Constitution makes that possible. They might not always be right. But at least they look into it and try (are obligated by the Constitution) to evaluate the Constitutionality - because the Constitution demands that.

What would YOUR CONSTITUTION require? - NOT looking into such matters and making a determination? Write it out. Propose it.

[obsrvr524]

in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.

You expect my foot to make such assessments? Better in "my head" than "out your ass". And it also has nothing at all to do with dogma (except perhaps "in your head" - which seems to be stuck in your dogma about dasein).

I'm arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.

Dog how could anyone with a whole human brain make over 38000 posts and never realize how utterly irrational that statement is. It reminds me of your "I'll examine the evidence AFTER you prove to me that it's true".

Obsrvr: "I believe this ball is yellow"
Iambiguous: "You insist that only your own opinion is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with your own are necessarily irrational. What you claim is only true in your own objectivist head."

How can you keep spouting that bonkers nonsense? - for YEARS.

I'm armed myself.

That's scary.

The rest of your post is all about the same nonsense. I believe in my objectivist head that there really is something wrong with your brain bloke - objectively. You never learn and it seems that experience indicates that discussion with you is just a waste. Your replies are always the same - anything you don't like is a matter of dasein and what is only true in the head of an objectivist who thinks his opinion is right - complete nonsensical waste.

I don't think anyone could make it clear to you how irrational you have been for years. So I guess you will never change.

[iambiguous]

First of all, here are the points I raised with him above:

I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.

Let's call this the "psychology of objectivism".

That is NOT true.

Well I guess that settles that then. For example, in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.

What defenders (all of those you call "objectivists") are saying is that the SCOTUS is to fairly attempt to interpret what was originally intended. If something else is needed it is up to Congress to amend the Constitution.

On the contrary, I'm not arguing that defenders are necessarily objectivists. I'm arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.

In fact I am an advocate myself for the right of American citizens to bear arms. I'm armed myself. It's just that I recognize that others, based on different sets of assumptions regarding what the words in the amendment mean, are also able to make reasonable arguments.

And that depending on whether the blue states or the red states are able to send more representatives to Congress, the legal parameters of "well regulated" are clearly political prejudices. Why on earth do you suppose that cases keep ending up in the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ted_States

Instead, I focus on the words "well regulated".

As usual your default and derail to "objectivism" has nothing at all to do with any of this.

No, as usual, from my point of view, you presume that your own understanding of all this is the the one and the only understanding that counts.

Consider:

How is this not applicable to you:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview regarding the 2nd amendment.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on the 2nd amendment expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about the 2nd amendment; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy regarding the 2nd amendment with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about the 2nd amendment with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own views about the 2nd amendment as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for truth regarding the 2nd amendment, has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

It's not the militia part that some emphasize, it's the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.

Wrong again. It says that the "militia" being well regulated, NOT the citizens.

Again, that's just your interpretation. Others insist that if the part about a well regulated militia wasn't important in regard to a cirizens right to own guns, the amendment would simply have read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being "well regulated" not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?

Political prejudices are irrelevant to the right for a "well regulated militia".

Once again, from your own doctrinaire, authoritarian mind, merely asserting it makes it so.

how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some "my way or the highway" political dogma.

Again - irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the rights exist - NOT who is "objectively" right or wrong.

Same thing. Every single word in the amendment must be understood only as you understand them. And how you came to understand them has nothing to do with the existential trajectory of the experiences, relationships and access to specific information and knowledge you happened upon in regard to gun ownership in America.

Keep this in mind as you note the points he makes below:

in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.

You expect my foot to make such assessments? Better in "my head" than "out your ass". And it also has nothing at all to do with dogma (except perhaps "in your head" - which seems to be stuck in your dogma about dasein).

His point here in regard to my point? You tell me.

I'm arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.

Dog how could anyone with a whole human brain make over 38000 posts and never realize how utterly irrational that statement is. It reminds me of your "I'll examine the evidence AFTER you prove to me that it's true".

Nothing at all related to the points I raised above about the 2nd amendment. Instead, he becomes just another Stooge making me the issue.

Obsrvr: "I believe this ball is yellow"
Iambiguous: "You insist that only your own opinion is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with your own are necessarily irrational. What you claim is only true in your own objectivist head."

How can you keep spouting that bonkers nonsense? - for YEARS.

As though the thread was about "the right bear a yellow ball".

I'm armed myself.

That's scary.

The rest of your post is all about the same nonsense. I believe in my objectivist head that there really is something wrong with your brain bloke - objectively. You never learn and it seems that experience indicates that discussion with you is just a waste. Your replies are always the same - anything you don't like is a matter of dasein and what is only true in the head of an objectivist who thinks his opinion is right - complete nonsensical waste.

I don't think anyone could make it clear to you how irrational you have been for years. So I guess you will never change.

And, apparently, this intellectual drivel does not embarrass him in the slightest!

On the other hand, at least he wasn't reduced down to "you dirty commie bastard!!"

[obsrvr524]

Keep in mind this part -

I don't think anyone could make it clear to you how irrational you have been for years. So I guess you will never change.

You might want to remind your "Note to others" audience ("in your objectivist head") in the future.

[iambiguous]

Keep in mind this part -

I don't think anyone could make it clear to you how irrational you have been for years. So I guess you will never change.

You might want to remind your "Note to others" audience ("in your objectivist head") in the future.

Note to Pedro:

Show him how it's really done.

Seriously though, I can't even imagine allowing myself to be reduced down to something like this. There's just no way that, here and now, I can figure someone who takes pride in their own intellectual integrity, spewing out brain farts of this sort.

Even James was never reduced down to that.

Well, not that I can recall anyway.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Note to others:

iam is a coward.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8#p2785038

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

iam is a coward.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8#p2785038

Note to obsrvr524:

See, that is how it's done.

In fact, I challenge you to be more insubstantial than this!

[Pedro I Rengel]

I can't outtroll you iam.

No one can.

But you'se a coward. And that is now recorded fact.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I can't outtroll you iam.

No one can.

But you'se a coward. And that is now recorded fact.

AND an objectivist.

AND a commie.

[iambiguous]

I can't outtroll you iam.

No one can.

But you'se a coward. And that is now recorded fact.

Note to obsrvr524:

What I meant is I challenge you to be more insubstantial than this!

[Pedro I Rengel]

Coward.

[iambiguous]

Coward.

More to the point, a well regulated coward.

Just not by you.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Coward.

More to the point, a well regulated coward.

Just not by you.

No. I'm not in the business.

Thank you, though, for admitting the soul of the commie.

They just need someone to give them direction.

And a d to s.

[Mr Reasonable]

I can't outtroll you iam.

No one can.

But you'se a coward. And that is now recorded fact.

i can