Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Well, that's what judges are for, to determine if the hoops are infringing on the right or not.That means they can put as many hoops as they want
This morning's UK headlines, courtesy of the BBC.
Sometimes calling a snap election bites you in the ass. This was one of those times. Oops.
And 72% turnout for the 18-25s. "Millennials lost me the election" stories in 3... 2... 1...
Sometimes calling a snap election bites you in the ass. This was one of those times. Oops.
And 72% turnout for the 18-25s. "Millennials lost me the election" stories in 3... 2... 1...
Catalonia wants to Separate from Spain: Catalonia steps up separatist challenge with Oct. 1 vote
Any Europeans know more about this? I know it's historical (they've wanted this for a long time) but beyond that I'm not knowledgeable. I thought this was interesting though:
Any Europeans know more about this? I know it's historical (they've wanted this for a long time) but beyond that I'm not knowledgeable. I thought this was interesting though:
Also, I can only imagine that the Basque region would also do this if it was allowed and/or succeeded for Catalonia, given they've had violence in order to separate.
I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and believe there should be stronger gun regulation, but everything @GasBandit has said is factual. If the courts decide that mandatory licensing and education to carry a firearm are unconstitutional (I say courts, because I am not versed enough in the minutia of the laws to say if they are) then an amendment to the Constitution is needed. Amendments are also very hard to do, and there are deeply vested powers against it, as well as the general paranoia those powers have instilled in the population that any attempt to change would only be done to get rid of all guns.
They could also find *not* requiring registration unconstitutional because it violates the "well regulated" requirement of the very same amendment. We could go around and around on this until the internet ends, but it's all just idiots on the internet going around and around until the courts get the right test case.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
That is kinda why I made a point to mention the courts.
And I included myself with the idiots. Like I keep saying, I have this avatar for a reason. [emoji16]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah, I'm a Catalan separatist. I'm a bit disconnected from it due to the whole expat deal, but my family (and the news) keep me abreast. This situation has been building up for a long time, and I dearly wish Spain had better leaders (i.e. people that understood that diplomatically giving an inch a decade ago would've made the mile-long problem go away for a good while, instead of coming to head now). U.S.-style federalism (or some steps towards it) would've served, for a good while, as a big enough carrot to deflate the movement. Now it's a joke. Separatism has fed on the general discontent, and the existing grievances (scars from the dictatorship, a centralized tax system seen as unfair and regressive towards our region, cultural clashing, resentment over our laws being overridden or gutted, ...) have not been addressed.
I have no idea where it goes from here. I'll ask my father next time I call, he's generally the closest thing I know to an oracle (economic-political journalist with a good track record on correctness).
Worth noting that Catalan separatists used violence as well, in the past, though to a much lesser extent than the Basque.
Maybe @tegid or @SilverJelly can offer contrasting perspectives?
I wish I could give you double-plus informative on that posting Den. I didn't know anything of your background, in that it sounds like you're from there originally. Any more insights you could give on this one would be awesome.
And no matter what happens, I hope your family is safe. Things can always go weird when these types of issues crop up, even if they're peaceful right now.
Yeah, born and raised. Came over to the States for college... A decade ago now. Jesus. I'll update the thread when interesting things happen, though it's hard to tell what qualifies.
Thanks. I trust my parents to know when (if ever) the time to GTFO with the family is. Not that I think things will come to that. I think Spain is extremely afraid of how much face they would lose in Europe if they pull the ol' tanks-down-main-street maneuver. If they opt to suspend our state government, I could see there being rioting and such. The more likely route (to my limited reckoning) is to keep challenging everything our state government does with the supreme court, possibly disqualifying our elected representatives from office via sanctions, forcing them to take firmly illegal actions (an UDI being the main "nuclear option" if all other paths are barred).
But yeah. My main worry at the selfish level would be censorship, and legal ramifications splashing my dad. Spain has a shit track record when it comes to freedom of speech, and it's been getting worse. Big part of why I'm a big fan of the American legal precepts on 1st Am.
GasBandit
Staff member
No it's not, and we've been over that 500 times. "Well-regulated" in the 18th century meant something that works well, not something that is strapped down to as much government control as possible. The soldiers of the day were called "regulars" because they were equipped to a standard. A watch or a clock was said to be "well regulated" if it kept accurate time. A "Well Regulated Militia" is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders clarify their intent in the Federalist Papers.The gun nuts keep forgetting the phrase WELL REGULATED. That means they can put as many hoops as they want between you and your gun, while still allowing you to have that gun.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist 46
Plainly, the intent here is to keep every single able body armed, and thus difficult to oppress.
Furthermore, "Militia" does not mean "an organized branch of the military/government," it means "every single person physically capable of carrying a gun."
That is a complete apples and oranges comparison.
Last edited:
And I think Spain ought to watch Canada deal with Quebec.
I certainly doubt they haven't been watching. It'd be idiocy not to. It was obvious that Scotland took some lessons from us, anyway . . . wow, that was 2 and a half years ago! Time sucks.
We should secede from the Timelords!
I'm curious about that last bit.
The bolded part of Madison's quote reads like the militia officers are appointed by the town/city/county/state (whatever level of government he meant as subordinate).
What I see there is rather more what Canada calls a militia, a reserve force of civilians who train on their weekends. Which I think is what your States' National Guards are, too.
That's what it looks like Madison is generally talking about to me, although it looks like he's thinking that it would be organized at a county or municipal level, the level of government where citizens are far more directly involved. (Well, and he's dreaming that they might actually be moved to act against the higher level governments)
GasBandit
Staff member
The militia was every able bodied man capable of carrying a gun, but to be useful in a war/resistance scenario, someone does have to be in charge. These "officers" however were not military commissions. Kind of like how large office buildings sometimes appoint a "fire warden." They don't actually wield governmental authority, nor are they actual firefighters.
Spanish politicians have (judging from the record) a tendency to only negotiate from a position of weakness. No concessions are needed if they have (or feel they have) the upper hand. This has bred a lot of unnecessary enmity.
Well, I didn't say they learned anything from watching us.
I was originally gonna reply to bubble that I hope the Flemish, Scots and others don't take lessons from Spain unless it's to learn what not to do, because I rather expect it to go horribly wrong given Spain's history. I wound up not posting that because it seemed a little like I was being smug, or that I might be insulting the Spaniards here.
But yeah. I really don't expect it to go well if the situation actually nears secession - say, if a referendum on Catalan secession with a confusing question hits 49.5% Yes to 50.5% No.
Heh.Well, I didn't say they learned anything from watching us.
I was originally gonna reply to bubble that I hope the Flemish, Scots and others don't take lessons from Spain unless it's to learn what not to do, because I rather expect it to go horribly wrong given Spain's history. I wound up not posting that because it seemed a little like I was being smug, or that I might be insulting the Spaniards here.
But yeah. I really don't expect it to go well if the situation actually nears secession - say, if a referendum on Catalan secession with a confusing question hits 49.5% Yes to 50.5% No.
Yeah, that's why the questions are chosen carefully. The newly proposed question is pretty straightforward 'Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?'. Catalans are used to losing (looking at our history, you could say we excel at it) so I think we'd cope, if the Nay wins
Which obviously means we should have no standards about who owns guns...
How are they different again?
I get not trusting the government, but it's not like it's impossible to have independent militias that are still held to a certain standard through laws... seems to work fine for the food industry... or the toys that aren't from china industry.
So a law defining who or what is considered "capable" might be ok? An IQ under 50, does that exclude you? Homicidal tendencies? Suicidal tendencies? Antisocial behavior?
There'll always be a slippery slope - as with all such "rights". Saying you'd happily give a gun to a toddler is nuts. Giving one to the Joker is equally so. Once you say there are limits, someone can define them.
GasBandit
Staff member
cute wordplay does not policy validate.
Because doing one is expressly forbidden in the principal and highest document whose entire purpose is to define the limits of government, and the other... isn't.
More apples, oranges, and now pineapples. The militia isn't an organized military group, it's a resource. It's a state of readiness. It's the concept of the citizen-soldier. It's simply the notion of a general populace armed and capable of fighting.
Furthermore, you're thinking about it backwards. The idea isn't "we only allow guns because they're an evil necessity for forming specific, controlled militia groups," it is "The security of a free state requires an armed and capable general populace which can rise up in times of need, and for that reason (among others), everyone can have any and all the guns they want without government interference." The whole point was for it not to be constrained by government, because it was supposed to be a constraint ON government.[DOUBLEPOST=1497037119,1497036960][/DOUBLEPOST]
Capable as in physically capable. A toddler is not physically capable.
Now, starting to make rules based on mental health is also dangerous, because then all someone needs to do is set the bar high enough or worded in such a way that people they don't want armed are prevented from becoming so. You must be mindful of who is setting the definition - and it's usually government.
The very point I wanted to make, yes. Let me know if you're of the opinion that every Down or Alzheimer patient who wants to should have access to a gun.
Of course it's dangerous to let government make a rule about who should or shouldn't have a gun to oppose government. But most 12 year olds or physically perfectly capable of holding a gun. And sure, plenty of 12 year olds will already go out hunting or whatever with parents. Letting them bring a gun to school might just be a tad dangerous and unintended, though.
GasBandit
Staff member
You're talking about children here, by definition not having the full legal capacity of adults. They're also not allowed to vote, for example. In fact, the original age bracket for militia as defined by the founders was 18-45, though the upper limit would probably be considered higher these days.
That said, I and many of my contemporaries were handling small 22LR at age 13 at summer camp, and nobody got shot. Of course, the firearms were carefully managed by the camp personnel.
But for every preteen who is adept at handling a gun safely, there's probably 100 legal adults in constant jeopardy of blowing their toes off. Which gets back to what I said about there needing to be mandatory safety classes as part of the high school curriculum. A semester-long firearm safety course taken in the senior year would probably do the trick.
...to tell us which season it is?
I'm another with the opinion that there should be firearm training the same way there is drivers' ed or snowmobile/boating classes. I just don't know who should be tasked with that. The ATF, maybe? I mean, it's right there in the name.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Wordplay is what interpreting laws is all about... i mean, seriously.
You mean to tell me there's nothing in said document about having freedom from the government? Isn't that one of the reasons why y'all still don't have photo ID's for everyone at 14, like the rest of the civilized world?
When did i argue they're just for forming militias?
Yeah, if we take away guns from schizophrenics, we'll be killing jews in no time... there's a reason why there's something called a slippery slope fallacy.
Lol, of course not! No one wants to pay for it!
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe in YOUR dystopia. In OUR dystopia, we want clarity.
I'm not sure what "freedom from the government" is supposed to mean in a legal document sense. As for the ID thing, I'll defer to Mojo Nixon.
Aren't you? I mean, otherwise why are you worried about rules about them?
Actually, we've already had problems in the not so recent past. The Obama administration tried to strip the second amendment rights of social security recipients with "mental disorders"... which were so broadly defined that the law applied to people with eating disorders. The system is ripe for abuse and incompetence.
Incidentally, your fallacy is the straw man fallacy
No. Nope. Nuh uh. Not.
If you're gonna be that way about it, go full 18th century. Anything newer than a flintlock, BANNED. Too bad, so sad. You can have as many flintlocks as you want, so that's not being infringed.
Otherwise well regulated gets just as modern an interpretation as the rest of it.
No, no, something something whatever modern (infantry) soldier can carry into the field etc etc.
The Amendment serves two purposes:
1) Ensure that any enemy that breaks through the front lines is not "rewarded" with a resource-rich, soft, creamy center.
2) Ensure that the government both sufficiently relies on and is cautious of the armed populace that it is in the government's best interest to allow this "militia" to continue.
--Patrick
Nope. An 18th century interpretation he wants, an 18th century interpretation he shall get. the whole shebang. Let the mouth breathers in the local Chipotle's find a different penis extension to look like an idiot with.
I'm in way too bad a mood tonight to continue this without risking going places I'd rather not go.
Do you really want every amendment and article of your constitution interpreted explicitly from an that standpoint, with no allowance for the natural progression of technology, ethics, morality, ...? I would love to hear your take on the 1st Am.
Then again, that would get rid of the hilarious abuse the commerce clause has seen, and unleash an era of nigh-unfettered states rights so... Good for you!
I'm not the one who invoked the 18th century first. You can't leave only part of the Constitution stuck 250 years in the past.