The Conundrum

[Colonel Hogan]

You know, I read the other one twice. this here I read thrice. No dice.

Elab?

I don't know what else I can tell you. The amendment references "the right of the people to keep and bear." Where did that right come from? The 2nd Amendment didn't create it. From all appearances, it was a right colonists exercised long before the creation of the United States. And they exercised it in the context of waging war, personal self-defense, and hunting; primarily for food, less so for sport.

The desired purpose to ensure the existence of a militia for national defense is without question. The secondary purpose of a militia existing as a safeguard against the tyranny of a standing army is NOT stated in the amendment, but was a well-known sentiment expressed in the debates at the Constitutional Convention.

There is simply no basis -- historical, legal or otherwise -- for presuming that the PRIMARY purpose of affecting the existence and protection of the militia was INTENDED to NARROW the other lawful applications of the preexisting right.

That's it. That's all I got.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I don't know what else I can tell you. The amendment references "the right of the people to keep and bear." Where did that right come from? The 2nd Amendment didn't create it. From all appearances, it was a right colonists exercised long before the creation of the United States. And they exercised it in the context of waging war, personal self-defense, and hunting; primarily for food, less so for sport.

The desired purpose to ensure the existence of a militia for national defense is without question. The secondary purpose of a militia existing as a safeguard against the tyranny of a standing army is NOT stated in the amendment, but was a well-known sentiment expressed in the debates at the Constitutional Convention.

There is simply no basis -- historical, legal or otherwise -- for presuming that the PRIMARY purpose of affecting the existence and protection of the militia was INTENDED to NARROW the other lawful applications of the preexisting right.

That's it. That's all I got.

And that's good.

We agree certainly. And the constitution came to regulate more the state's possession of arms, and keep the natural right of an individual to bear arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Keep in mind that America of the time was a land of frontiers. A land without much of an army, very little organized policing and certainly nothing like the national guard and the borders of that frontier were inhabited by hostile nations and ruled by conflict. That is one of the realities of the Second Amendment at the time of its writing.

The world is no longer separated by distances, travel times and modes of transportation.

It is still a dangerous place even though the gun-ban crowd, especially the foreigners minimize the danger as to be so minimal as to be irrelevant. And, I freely admit, it's easy to think like that until something happens to you or a loved one.

 

[jaF0]

And, I freely admit, it's easy to think like that until something happens to you or a loved one.

Things happening to family members is what's driving the efforts to limit weapons. Too many family members are having things happen to them by other family members with poppops. In some cases, entire households are being wiped out by one member with a poppop. Get rid of the popops and you'll see a lot less of that. Families will be less likely to be wiped out in one fell swoop.

 

[EternalFantasies]

And, I freely admit, it's easy to think like that until something happens to you or a loved one.

And you freely fail.


For starters it shouldn't be like this. any member of your society dying from weapons should trouble you as if it did a loved one. Since it didn't, then you made the rational choice, and this line up there is emotional crap.

For seconds, the rare shooting apart, let any person try, and they'll do so fully knowing I come armed with the right mind, and the right weapon. No better deterrence, especially in a free state.

 

[Lancecastor]

And you freely fail.


For starters it shouldn't be like this. any member of your society dying from weapons should trouble you as if it did a loved one. Since it didn't, then you made the rational choice, and this line up there is emotional crap.

For seconds, the rare shooting apart, let any person try, and they'll do so fully knowing I come armed with the right mind, and the right weapon. No better deterrence, especially in a free state.

Quoted for sad over-reach.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Quoted for sad over-reach.

Ok. Here's the alternative.

Don't care

&


Try me



Sec.

 

[LIVINRFANTASIES]

I like your use of colour.

I like the large box of Crayons. There are so many colors to choose from. My only problem is staying 'inside the lines' and thinking which crayon to take 'out of the box.'

Right now I like flesh color and I hate using a conundrum during sex.

PS... I almost forgot, caucasion flesh color, not that I mind other flesh colors.

Conundrums are so confusing.

 

[EternalFantasies]

https://media.giphy.com/media/2fI86UJX8lIaI/giphy.gif

 

[Rightguide]

I don't know what else I can tell you. The amendment references "the right of the people to keep and bear." Where did that right come from? The 2nd Amendment didn't create it. From all appearances, it was a right colonists exercised long before the creation of the United States. And they exercised it in the context of waging war, personal self-defense, and hunting; primarily for food, less so for sport.

The desired purpose to ensure the existence of a militia for national defense is without question. The secondary purpose of a militia existing as a safeguard against the tyranny of a standing army is NOT stated in the amendment, but was a well-known sentiment expressed in the debates at the Constitutional Convention.

There is simply no basis -- historical, legal or otherwise -- for presuming that the PRIMARY purpose of affecting the existence and protection of the militia was INTENDED to NARROW the other lawful applications of the preexisting right.

That's it. That's all I got.

And that folks is the way it is.

 

[ToucheAmore]

And that folks is the way it is.

you have some of his seed spilling from your lips.

 

[Rightguide]

you have some of his seed spilling from your lips.

Please learn some manners and stop trying to talk with your mouth full, and stop projecting your present condition to others.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Keep in mind that America of the time was a land of frontiers. A land without much of an army, very little organized policing and certainly nothing like the national guard and the borders of that frontier were inhabited by hostile nations and ruled by conflict. That is one of the realities of the Second Amendment at the time of its writing.

The world is no longer separated by distances, travel times and modes of transportation.

It is still a dangerous place even though the gun-ban crowd, especially the foreigners minimize the danger as to be so minimal as to be irrelevant. And, I freely admit, it's easy to think like that until something happens to you or a loved one.

All very true. But traditionally when our circumstances work to render our laws obsolete we change the laws. The problem with 2nd Amendment opponents is that they somehow think that because the 2nd Amendment is, in their view obsolete, we are free to simply ignore its guarantees or legislate it out of any reasonable application apart from the legal mandate of how the Constitution is amended.

Neither approach is acceptable.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And you freely fail.


For starters it shouldn't be like this. any member of your society dying from weapons should trouble you as if it did a loved one. Since it didn't, then you made the rational choice, and this line up there is emotional crap.

For seconds, the rare shooting apart, let any person try, and they'll do so fully knowing I come armed with the right mind, and the right weapon. No better deterrence, especially in a free state.

I am struggling to understand the first paragraph, so I will say this, that there is a difference between, for example, members of my society dying in a drug war over turf and a member of my family crossing the path of those people and dying in that struggle.

Additionally, if you look at the gun-death stats and reduce them from suicide and the number improve drastically. Furthermore, the high incident of veteran suicides needs to be linked to that trauma.

I'm not sure what your last paragraph is trying to say, but I agree, when the perp knows that he will meet resistance, then he is much more hesitant. It is sad to think that concert promoters might have to hire sniper teams at venues with tall buildings to eliminate people like this shooter.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

All very true. But traditionally when our circumstances work to render our laws obsolete we change the laws. The problem with 2nd Amendment opponents is that they somehow think that because the 2nd Amendment is, in their view obsolete, we are free to simply ignore its guarantees or legislate it out of any reasonable application apart from the legal mandate of how the Constitution is amended.

Neither approach is acceptable.

I agree. But rather than change the Constitution, to construct an argument, to persuade and to compromise, California just acted to use the tenth to nullify the Constitution's clear mandate over immigration to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.

I'm I reading this wrong?

Is the Cuban policy now a world policy and are those people now protected by, I'm not sure of the wording, but protection across the states, like marriage, or interstate "commerce?"

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I agree. But rather than change the Constitution, to construct an argument, to persuade and to compromise, California just acted to use the tenth to nullify the Constitution's clear mandate over immigration to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.

I'm I reading this wrong?

Is the Cuban policy now a world policy and are those people now protected by, I'm not sure of the wording, but protection across the states, like marriage, or interstate "commerce?"

Are you talking about this?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/14/california-trump-sanctuary-city-grant-lawsuit-241623

I don't find anything in there about Cuba. I think I need a link to whatever you are referring to.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What I'm talking about is Moonbeam signing the bill to make the entire state a sanctuary.


I was not clear and maybe it was a bad analogy, but the uniting theme here seems to be, just get here and we will normalize your presence and provide you with every benefit that citizenship enjoys...


Better? I'm pretty tired. Been working a lot lately. Good help is getting hard to find.

 

[MGurkus]

And you freely fail.


For starters it shouldn't be like this. any member of your society dying from weapons should trouble you as if it did a loved one. Since it didn't, then you made the rational choice, and this line up there is emotional crap.

For seconds, the rare shooting apart, let any person try, and they'll do so fully knowing I come armed with the right mind, and the right weapon. No better deterrence, especially in a free state.

Oh boy, we have another internet tough guy. Eternal dicklick is at it again! Lol

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What I'm talking about is Moonbeam signing the bill to make the entire state a sanctuary.


I was not clear and maybe it was a bad analogy, but the uniting theme here seems to be, just get here and we will normalize your presence and provide you with every benefit that citizenship enjoys...


Better? I'm pretty tired. Been working a lot lately. Good help is getting hard to find.

Upon cursory examination, Governor Brown and the State of California seem to be well within their rights. Their premise is that they are in no way obstructing or denying federal authority to enforce federal law. They're simply not going to help in most areas of immigration enforcement. And, they will argue that, under the 10th Amendment, they cannot be compelled to do so.

The applicable Supreme Court case appears to be Printz v. United States (1997), wherein Justice Scalia writing for a five member majority (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy & Thomas joined) held:

The Brady Act’s interim provision commanding CLEOs ["chief law enforcement officer” (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction] to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional. Extinguished with it is the duty implicit in the background-check requirement that the CLEO accept completed handgun-applicant statements (Brady Forms) from firearms dealers, §§ 922(s)(1)(A)(i)(III) and (IV). Pp. 904–933.

(a) Because there is no constitutional text speaking to the precise question whether congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional, the answer to the CLEOs’ challenge must be sought in historical understanding and practice, in the Constitution’s structure, and in this Court’s jurisprudence.

(b) Relevant constitutional practice tends to negate the existence of the congressional power asserted here, but is not conclusive. Enactments of the early Congresses seem to contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States’ executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization.

The early enactments establish, at most, that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power. The Government misplaces its reliance on portions of The Federalist suggesting that federal responsibilities could be imposed on state officers. None of these statements necessarily implies—what is the critical point here—that Congress could impose these responsibilities without the States’ consent. They appear to rest on the natural assumption that the States would consent, see FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742, 796, n. 35 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). Finally, there is an absence of executivecommandeering federal statutes in the country’s later history, at least until very recent years. Even assuming that newer laws represent an assertion of the congressional power challenged here, they are of such recent vintage that they are not probative of a constitutional tradition.

(c) The Constitution’s structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of “dual sovereignty.” See, e. g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text. See, e. g., Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service—and at no cost to itself—the police officers of the 50 States.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/case.html

So the conservative wing of the Court, if one wants to be partisanly skeptical as to their collective motivations, in an arguable attempt to weaken enforcement of the Brady Bill, relieved local CLEOs from enforcement obligations under the 10th Amendment. The four-member liberal wing naturally dissented.

More than a bit ironic in the current context, don't ya think?

 

[jaF0]

More than a bit ironic in the current context, don't ya think?

This is part of what's so wrong with politics today. Everybody wants to twist things to their own advantage or point of view instead of looking at doing what's best for the nation as a whole.

 

[Rightguide]

Upon cursory examination, Governor Brown and the State of California seem to be well within their rights. Their premise is that they are in no way obstructing or denying federal authority to enforce federal law. They're simply not going to help in most areas of immigration enforcement. And, they will argue that, under the 10th Amendment, they cannot be compelled to do so.

The applicable Supreme Court case appears to be Printz v. United States (1997), wherein Justice Scalia writing for a five member majority (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy & Thomas joined) held:



So the conservative wing of the Court, if one wants to be partisanly skeptical as to their collective motivations, in an arguable attempt to weaken enforcement of the Brady Bill, relieved local CLEOs from enforcement obligations under the 10th Amendment. The four-member liberal wing naturally dissented.

More than a bit ironic in the current context, don't ya think?

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of how the new CA law squares with 8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization

(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

(b) Additional authority of government entities notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

(2) Maintaining such information.

(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity

 

[EternalFantasies]

I am struggling to understand the first paragraph, so I will say this, that there is a difference between, for example, members of my society dying in a drug war over turf and a member of my family crossing the path of those people and dying in that struggle.

Well obviously I don't mean that.

This debate is stirred due to those shootings.. and other deaths of innocents for various reasons involving guns.. so i'm generalising that way and saying if in the past those deaths didn't change an opinion on gun laws, then a death of a loved one in the same manner shouldn't either.

the whole post, was quite clear.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of how the new CA law squares with 8 U.S. Code §1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization

(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

(b) Additional authority of government entities notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

(2) Maintaining such information.

(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity

Another nice find there, RG. And just off the top of my head, I'd say the California law stands in opposition to it. But it is also worth noting that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which was the legislation from which 8 U.S. Code §1373 was codified predated the Supreme Court's decision in Printz by about nine months.

So based on both legal authority and timing, I'm going to guess that the legal principles in Printz reign supreme over the prohibitions of 8 USC §1373.

As in all things legal, however, the SCOTUS holdings in Printz technically only applies to the government's actions in that case. To my knowledge, 8 USC §1373 has never been reviewed by the Court for Constitutionality.

But my gut instinct says they would simply defer to Printz.

 

[Ishmael]

ICE has responded to Moonbeam's signing of that law.

"At Large arrests to be made."

I wonder if those that thought that that law was their salvation are going to start demanding that Jerry "do something about those pricks at ICE?"

You're move Jerry.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

ICE has responded to Moonbeam's signing of that law.

"At Large arrests to be made."

I wonder if those that thought that that law was their salvation are going to start demanding that Jerry "do something about those pricks at ICE?"

You're move Jerry.

Ishmael

I'd say he's pretty much out of moves. This is the bed he made to sleep in. One of the primary justifications of the bill is that it presents no obstacle to the federal government enforcing federal law.

Then, damn well don't. Or suffer the appropriate consequences.

He staged this melodrama and now has no recourse but to allow it to play out.