The PROFITS, My Dear! Gun Makers Cash IN!!!

The BBQ Pit
101

So first you ask about acquisition - and you are presented a case about acquisition. It says it right there in the quote. Somehow you deny that, and are apparently construing it as availability and then drawing a distinction between availability for purchase and acquisition. You’re wrong of course, the court describes acquisition - the thing you are asking about. Pretzel logic is great! It gets better though.

Then you’re talking about well yes the court did say exactly that, but they got it wrong of course. Maybe it will be overturned, maybe not. It’s still controlling in the 9th right now.

That’s from SCOTUS. Is that part not clear? Now whether an excise tax or some other prohibitive fee runs afoul of these coextensive rights hasn’t been fully fleshed out. It’d be an interesting wager.

102

You state those facts as axiomatic truths when in fact they are a particular ideological interpretation of a nation’s constitution that is closely aligned with the conservative ideals of originalism and textualism. It is equally valid to believe that there are such things as unwritten constitutional norms and the presumption that a constitution must reflect a nation’s evolving identity and values, and that it can not only become outdated but also inadequate or incomplete.

And there is no better example of this than the Second Amendment. You can argue forever whether the Founders had hundreds of years of awesome prescience and would have wanted the same measure today despite the technological development of automatic weaponry and all the carnage on American streets, whether it’s ridiculously and dangerously obsolete, or whether the Founders ever meant it to be an individual right for any individual purpose in the first place. But all of those arguments are subject to judgment and interpretation – none are in the category of mathematical axioms unless one is a Scalia originalist – and a great many wise justices are not.

It’s possible to be both intelligent in many important ways and batshit crazy at the same time. Some mass murderers and historical demagogues have been in that category. I love reading Scalia’s opinions for their richness of language, and I abhor them for their ideological crackpottery.

103

If you think there’s a problem there, it’s not my powers of logic that are in question.

104

Imho, the “Living Constitution” interpretation is a justification for the expansive rulings the court has made since the Roosevelt administration. If the Second Amendment is so out of date, why isn’t it modified or repealed by the amendment process? My guess is because it would be an admission that the Constitution IS textualist- that it says what it means and means what it says. That it lays out the ground rules for what is and what is not on the table, and if you want to change those rules, use the amendment process. That process is by design conservative- and if you object to that, lower the threshold for how large a majority is needed to amend.

The alternative, the Living Constitution, ironically is that the Constitution IS a perfect document of divine wisdom, and that the justices, like Torah scholars, can pull any conclusion needed from it if only enough study is applied.

105

There should be a steep tax on all media outlets who solemnly ask/intone “How do we heal as a nation?”

I think about 5 million a sanctimonious pronouncement is about right.

106

I could maybe disagree more, but it would involve thermonuclear weaponry.

The problem with this view is that it rests ultimate sovereign power – the power to substantively change the supreme law of the land – in the hands of unelected federal judges with lifetime appointments.

To be sure, you might reply that this is a peachy idea, but it isn’t: it’s an idea that runs counter to our notion of what self-governance, of what “We The People,” being the source of just power really means.

The amendment process was created for the purpose of addressing the inevitability that changes would need to be made. Those who speak of a “Living Constitution,” are generally those whose chief complaint is the desire for a change but the inability to garner the requisite popular support… and so turn, instead, to the task of convincing our wise philosopher-kings of their change’s salubrious effects. And if successful, we have a coup d’oeil rewrite of the supreme law of the United States. That’s naked violence done to the process of self-governance: you proles are too stupid to support these necessary changes, so we shall tell you what to think.

107

The 2nd Amendment is a masterpiece of ambiguity, yes, repeat, no! All that is required is to interpret it in one of its two most likely interpretations. Interpret the 2nd as a restriction that refers only to “well-regulated militia” and interpret well-regulated in a strict way. Most every state has a well-regulated militia in the form of the National Guard, OK. They may have access to weapons that the rest of us do not. No problem.

Not saying this makes anything any easier, it doesn’t, the resistance to gun control is irrational and unreasoning. And frankly, I have a very hard time seeing how any legislation could be effective, guns are everywhere. They don’t even rust away, if cleaned and oiled with the devout attention common to the ballistophiliac. Not entirely hopeless, but very, very difficult.

But at bottom, we are not required to rend asunder, simply re-interpret.

Barry Goldwater famously opposed the Civil Rights Acts on Constitutional grounds, that the Federal government was not empowered to impose itself upon the States. Reading him on it, he says he agonized over it, fully cognizant that his approach would slow, or even halt, progress and justice for colored Americans.

I think he was wrong, even if I accepted his interpretation as correct. The wretched state of affairs could no longer be tolerated. If we were justified in violent revolution over taxation and representation, how could we say that our oppressed citizens should not, or could not, violently resist their oppression? What good is a Constitution that protects such flagrant injustice?

Perhaps interpreting the Constitution in a way that Barry (not you, Barry, the other Barry…) could not approve did violence to the Constitution. Perhaps an appendectomy does violence to the patient. But it was necessary, and all it required was a different interpretation.

Barry Goldwater’s case was solidly founded and well-reasoned. He was still wrong. As are you, Counselor.

108

Goldwater opposed Title II and Title VII only of the CRA of 1964. Those were associated with public accommodations. It wasn’t about the feds imposing on the states, but the feds imposing on the private sector beyond the powers granted to it in the constitution. He did not oppose, for example, Title III of that act which was directed at state governments.

109

True enough, and so what? My point is that using the Constitution to support inequality is wrong. Do you disagree? My further point is that the matter can be resolved simply by a different and supportable interpretation. Do you disagree?

My illustration of my point is in error. My point still stands. To me, that’s what counts, YMMV.

110

Whatever might be claimed about the Second Amendment, it clearly was intended to place a restriction on federal power. So I have a hypothetical question for the “well-regulated militia” (collective right) adherents. In the 1790s a few years after the Constitution is ratified, the federal congress passes and the President signs a law something like the following: “No person ineligible to be called to muster shall keep or bear arms”. IOW, there would be a federal law forbidding women, teenagers, freed slaves, men too old to serve, or other persons disqualified for various reasons, to own or carry guns; and federal agents and marshals would enforce this law. Do you suppose that the states would have accepted that the federal government had that authority, and acquiesced to it?

111

Inequality before the law, yes. Otherwise… it depends.

For example, the CRA of 1964 still allows private clubs to discriminate by race or sex. Do you think we should take a constitutional pry bar to that last bastion of inequality?

I’ll just note that I think Bricker conflated two different things in his post: The “Living Constitution Theory” (LC Theory) and the idea that justices should do “what’s good for society”. One can adhere to the LC theory, and still think that justices must uphold duly enacted laws even if they think they are “bad for society”.

I don’t adhere the LC Theory of Jurisprudence, but I don’t discount it as a legitimate, mainstream judicial philosophy. But I do reject the idea that justices are supposed to do what they think is good for society, even if they think it’s not justified by either the law in question or the constitution.

112

In almost all cases, yes. Stability is important. But this was an emergency, in my estimation. Something had to be done, and the Southern power structure had to be forced to do it. The phrase “rammed down their throats” is usually a wild exaggeration. But not in this case.

And “good for society”? If justice and equality isn’t good for society, what could be? And if this “society” depends on oppression and injustice, then I am its enemy, and it is mine.

113

That would be a good point if everyone agreed on what “justice” is. It took thousands of years to replace “rule of man” with “rule of law”. All told, I’ll take rule of law. YMMV.

BTW, I didn’t say untying about “stability”. The democratic process can shake things up, too, and the CRA of '64 was absolutely correct in eliminated state-sanctioned discrimination. Yes, that had to be done.

114

Clearly to you, maybe. Not to the non-result-oriented, who are forced to accept that the entire sentence exists.

There are many things the federal government restricts people from doing. You can read more about it in the rest of the Constitution. Why would this be an exception? You appear not to realize that gun ownership isn’t a religion or a fetish for most of the rest of us, and never has been. You’re one of the minority, and for good reason.

115

Don’t be silly. When it says “shall not be infringed”, that was clearly a restriction on the what the Tooth Fairy can do. The feds? Fuhgetaboutit!!!

116

Perhaps you didn’t realize that your formulation (quoted below) leads to only one logical conclusion: that the government has no right to tax.

And yet, there it is in the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8–the right of the government to tax!

So, yes: your powers of logic are in question, at least with regard to these quoted remarks:

If “the government cannot do something which would make guns unaffordable” then logically the government may not impose any tax of any kind–because even the smallest tax might make a gun “unaffordable” to some citizen. Yet as has been noted in this thread, the federal government has been imposing excise taxes on the manufacture of firearms since at least 1934 (which types, and what taxes on the types, have changed over time). Such taxes have yet to be declared unconstitutional.

How do the GDers feel about identical-topic threads being made in both folders?

I’m genuinely asking. I started on the SDMB in Café Society and now post mainly in Elections; though I’d love to have spent enough time in each subfolder to know their particular cultures, there are only 24 hours in each day. So, given that what I proposed in the OP here is basically what I’d propose in GD (though with a less-snarky title), how would a retread be greeted–on its merits, or as a BBQ-stained incursion?

I’d be happy to start the thread over there if it’s not violative of SDMB protocol.

117

Culture? When I hear that word, I reach for my CD of Revolver! We ain’t got no friggin’ culture! GD? That’s for nellies who murmur politely while sipping their tea, pinkies akimbo!

118

It wouldn’t be the same subject. This thread is more about how “I want to kill whitey” is going to run up gun sales. Your new thread would be: “Resolved, The Federal Government Could Place an Arbitrarily High Tax on Guns”. Then you lay out your case about how the 2nd amendment doesn’t say anything about a right acquire guns, so the feds could place a $!M tax on guns, effectively eliminating gun sales in the US. [Genius!!]

119

Sounds like time for a RUMBLE!!!

120

You’re too bitter to participate in the rumble, sorry.