Gas knows. He knows everything. The all powerful Gasbandit, towering over us mental midgets.
Town Covers Up Gang Rape to Protect High School Football Season
- Thread starter Zappit
- Start date
What vexes you?
Did you really just say that while at the same time being vehemently anti gun?
The Constitution is as wrong on legalizing guns as it was wrong on Prohibition imo
That doesn't really address your argument there. In fact, it kind of undercuts it.
GasBandit
Staff member
I think his point was, you can't use the constitution, standing on its own, as an unassailable shield for your arguments on punishment when you've been poking holes in it for your other pet issues.
Alright, let me try again: I agree with the constitution on outlawing cruel and unusual punishment, and disagree on it with guns.
If you talked more like this, I wouldn't think you're a raving lunatic.
That's all fine and dandy, but your agreement with any part of it is inconsequential. Either you say "the Constitution is a historic document, that should be read and reinterpreted, allowing for changing cultural values", or you say "the Constitution is holy and untouchable, it's a text set forth by infallible superhumans" (guess which one I consider the correct way of dealing with the Constitution? Or the Bible or Quran, for that matter?). You can't claim the Constitution as an authority argument here, and dismiss the exact same argument over there.
I mean, you can, but it makes you look weak and/or hypocritical.
That said, I'm all in favour of restorative options and reintegrating criminals into society - it's possible in a lot of cases, with proper treatment, education and/or giving new hope. Yes, even rapists can be reintegrated in society, in many cases. That's my moral and intellectual self. On the other hand, my baser desires and instincts do tell me to exterminate anything endangering the species, especially those who hurt children or the young. This is why you need impartial and fair judges: vengeance isn't justice, and while oone may be fun, it's the other we should be striving for.
GasBandit
Staff member
FORTHEUPMPTEENTHTIME"WELLREGULATEDMILITIA"DOESNOTMEANSTRICTLYCONTROLLEDBYTHEGOVERNMENTITMEANSWELLRUNNINGANDWELLEQUIPPEDTO"REGULAR"STANDARDS
hmm.. this sounds like an activist judge trying to rewrite the Constitution for their own wants to me.....
It actually sounds more like a congressional scholar or languages professor remarking on what those words actually meant at the time as opposed to now.
Also, wasn't this thread about some asshole rapists? Why are we discussing guns here when we already have a thread going about that?
Because everyone started jerking off to their sick and twisted revenge and castration penalties, and I said I supported the "cruel and unusual punishment" part of the Constitution.
GasBandit
Staff member
What doesn't?
But seriously, that's a point that's been made in every single gun control thread since three forums back.
On the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment
Henry E. Schaffer
"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty
of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation,
and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social
Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."
These resounding words were the opening of a November 12, 1789 Act of
the North Carolina Legislature which was passed on December 11, 1789 and
which chartered the University of North Carolina. Noting that this Act
was contemporaneous with the Bill of Rights (which was transmitted to the
state legislatures on September 25, 1789) and that the North Carolina
Legislature was active at that time, North Carolina being one of the
original 13 states, let us pay particular attention to the usage of the
words "well regulated" found both in this Act and in the 2nd Amendment
of the BoR. The use of "well regulated" in this act can shed some light
on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment reads: "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."
The debate between the collectivist and the individualist
interpretations of the 2nd has often focused on the meaning of "well
regulated" in the opening phrase "well regulated Militia". The
collectivists claim this this refers to a Militia which is tightly
controlled by the government, deducing this from the etymology of
"regulated" which relates to "ruled". However, this ignores the usage
of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper
operations of a device rather than to man-made laws. We still see this
in the word "regular", which in many contexts means "properly operating."
Let me give two examples of usage of the word "regulate" which have
been in existence for quite a long time and which have the same
"properly operating" interpretation.
1) Horology: The adjustment of a portable timepiece so it will keep
time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept (and
perhaps at the different temperatures which it may encounter.) A
(mechanical) wrist-watch which has been so designed and adjusted is said
to be "regulated" and likely has this word stamped or engraved on its
back-plate.
2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim.
If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling")
fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and
needs to be "re-regulated".
Both of these uses have meanings *related* to the "to rule" of
man-made laws, but are more in the nature of "to adjust to or to be in
a state of proper functioning". So a "well regulated watch" or a "well
regulated double barreled shotgun" both would have meaning of "having
been put into properly functioning condition".
From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped
militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their
own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)
The language of the NC Legislature in 1789 strengthens this
interpretation. What can "well regulated Governments" mean other
than "properly functioning Governments"? Surely it didn't and
couldn't refer to a government under the control of man-made laws, for
it is the government itself which makes these laws, and it would neither
be noble nor sensible for the Legislature to be proclaiming that it is
controlling itself.
An additional contemporaneous document which exhibits the same
meaning is the Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing
the composition of the militia and says, "To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to_acquire_the_degree_of_
perfection_which_would_entitle_them_to_the_character_of_a_
well-regulated_militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis added)
Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not
refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia
or the members of the militia.
This interpretation is also borne out by some old or obsolete
definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an
Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then
"discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training
in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more
widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill
and experience; the art of war."
The "people" have the 2nd Amendment right, not the militia. Today
many people make a large distinction between the two groups, perhaps
confusing "militia" and "Army". The militia is more inclusive,
including the Armed Forces, the National Guard and the unorganized
component described in the U.S. Code as "The militia of the United
States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and,
except [for felons], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."
The age and gender restrictions might be challenged as discriminatory.
The historical basis for a more inclusive definition includes the U. S.
Supreme Court statement that "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens
capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved militia force or
reserve militia of the United States as well as the States; ..." From
this we see that the mention of the militia does not conflict with the
individualist interpretation.
Therefore I conclude that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, "A
properly functioning Militia is necessary to the security of a free
State; therefore the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear
Arms shall not be infringed."
References:
Act of NC Legislature of Nov. 12, 1789 - Legislative Papers, H. of C.,
1789, AH. Cited in A Documentary History of The University of North
Carolina 1776-1799 Compiled and Annotated by R. D. W. Connor The
University of North Carolina Press 1953. Volume 1, page 23.
Original Charter of the University, December 11, 1789, An Act to
Establish a University in this State. N. C. Laws, 1789, S. R., XXV,
Chap. XX, 21-25. Cited in Connor (1953) Volume 1, page 34.
Federalist Paper #29
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989.
United States Code, Title 10, Section 311(a)
Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois 116 U.S. 252
Henry E. Schaffer
"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty
of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation,
and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social
Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."
These resounding words were the opening of a November 12, 1789 Act of
the North Carolina Legislature which was passed on December 11, 1789 and
which chartered the University of North Carolina. Noting that this Act
was contemporaneous with the Bill of Rights (which was transmitted to the
state legislatures on September 25, 1789) and that the North Carolina
Legislature was active at that time, North Carolina being one of the
original 13 states, let us pay particular attention to the usage of the
words "well regulated" found both in this Act and in the 2nd Amendment
of the BoR. The use of "well regulated" in this act can shed some light
on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment reads: "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."
The debate between the collectivist and the individualist
interpretations of the 2nd has often focused on the meaning of "well
regulated" in the opening phrase "well regulated Militia". The
collectivists claim this this refers to a Militia which is tightly
controlled by the government, deducing this from the etymology of
"regulated" which relates to "ruled". However, this ignores the usage
of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper
operations of a device rather than to man-made laws. We still see this
in the word "regular", which in many contexts means "properly operating."
Let me give two examples of usage of the word "regulate" which have
been in existence for quite a long time and which have the same
"properly operating" interpretation.
1) Horology: The adjustment of a portable timepiece so it will keep
time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept (and
perhaps at the different temperatures which it may encounter.) A
(mechanical) wrist-watch which has been so designed and adjusted is said
to be "regulated" and likely has this word stamped or engraved on its
back-plate.
2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim.
If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling")
fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and
needs to be "re-regulated".
Both of these uses have meanings *related* to the "to rule" of
man-made laws, but are more in the nature of "to adjust to or to be in
a state of proper functioning". So a "well regulated watch" or a "well
regulated double barreled shotgun" both would have meaning of "having
been put into properly functioning condition".
From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped
militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their
own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)
The language of the NC Legislature in 1789 strengthens this
interpretation. What can "well regulated Governments" mean other
than "properly functioning Governments"? Surely it didn't and
couldn't refer to a government under the control of man-made laws, for
it is the government itself which makes these laws, and it would neither
be noble nor sensible for the Legislature to be proclaiming that it is
controlling itself.
An additional contemporaneous document which exhibits the same
meaning is the Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing
the composition of the militia and says, "To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to_acquire_the_degree_of_
perfection_which_would_entitle_them_to_the_character_of_a_
well-regulated_militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis added)
Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not
refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia
or the members of the militia.
This interpretation is also borne out by some old or obsolete
definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an
Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then
"discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training
in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more
widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill
and experience; the art of war."
The "people" have the 2nd Amendment right, not the militia. Today
many people make a large distinction between the two groups, perhaps
confusing "militia" and "Army". The militia is more inclusive,
including the Armed Forces, the National Guard and the unorganized
component described in the U.S. Code as "The militia of the United
States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and,
except [for felons], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."
The age and gender restrictions might be challenged as discriminatory.
The historical basis for a more inclusive definition includes the U. S.
Supreme Court statement that "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens
capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved militia force or
reserve militia of the United States as well as the States; ..." From
this we see that the mention of the militia does not conflict with the
individualist interpretation.
Therefore I conclude that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, "A
properly functioning Militia is necessary to the security of a free
State; therefore the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear
Arms shall not be infringed."
References:
Act of NC Legislature of Nov. 12, 1789 - Legislative Papers, H. of C.,
1789, AH. Cited in A Documentary History of The University of North
Carolina 1776-1799 Compiled and Annotated by R. D. W. Connor The
University of North Carolina Press 1953. Volume 1, page 23.
Original Charter of the University, December 11, 1789, An Act to
Establish a University in this State. N. C. Laws, 1789, S. R., XXV,
Chap. XX, 21-25. Cited in Connor (1953) Volume 1, page 34.
Federalist Paper #29
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989.
United States Code, Title 10, Section 311(a)
Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois 116 U.S. 252
Not only that, but his point about "you should have to belong to a militia" is moot because according to 10 USC 311, if you're a male between 17 and 45, you ARE automatically in the militia.
This part seems the most easily changeable to me.
According to the supreme court it means slightly more than you would like it to apparently:
I don't know any gun owners, myself included who are a part of anything resembling this. Personally I think it's safe to say both sides of the gun control argument have moved beyond the framers concept for the 2nd amendment and have both modernized it. I'm ok with that mind you, I don't think anti-gun control arguments are all bad nor do I think that guns should be banned. I do think there are some serious issues regarding how guns are bought and sold and regulated.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, there we're also running into the definition of militia - the applicable definition of militia here is any able bodied male civilian unconnected with the armed forces. There isn't a government body called "the militia," there isn't a place to go to join "the militia," militia is just a term for peasants with firearms acting in a militant manner.
Zappit
Staff member
Guilty on all counts.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...s-in-steubenville-high-school-rape-trial?lite
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...s-in-steubenville-high-school-rape-trial?lite
Oh, didn't you hear? She totally had it coming. She drank alcohol, and you know about those girls who drink alcohol: total sluts that deserve to be raped.
(That's pretty close to the actual argument the defense lawyer put forth. Now. In 2013.
)
figmentPez
Staff member
A nice start. I don't think justice will have been done until all those who tried to cover up the crimes are convicted and punished as well.
Dave
Staff member
I have much more disdain for the adults in this story than the kids. Why were high school students allowed to be out until 2-4 am drinking? People wonder why football players get to college or pros and act like they can do anything they like - because it's what they learned. These guys obviously thought nothing was going to happen to them because everyone and their dog tried to cover it up. Were it not for Anonymous getting involved, I rather doubt anything would have come of it.
figmentPez
Staff member
So would I, but don't you know that saying that teenagers shouldn't be getting drunk is blaming the victim?
I just hope some people see this and realize that rape / sexual asssault is so much more often something like this instead of the stranger jumping from the shadows at night with a gun. And taking advantage of girls like this brings the same consequences and will put you on the same registry for the rest of your life.
figmentPez
Staff member
Did you see the headline at Breitbart.com? "Guilty Verdict in Steubenville Rape Case that Saw Anonymous Terrorize a Town".
Dave
Staff member
Are you serious?!?[DOUBLEPOST=1363635172][/DOUBLEPOST]Jesus Christ I just read that article. I have no words. And the comments...oh dear and fluffy lord the comments....
figmentPez
Staff member
Sadly, yes. I only skimmed the article, but it claims that Anonymous intimidated witnesses, humiliated the victim by forcing her into the spotlight, and is the result of a conspiracy to falsely portray the US as promoting rape culture. Generally the article seems to be centered around the idea that this sexual assault shouldn't have been national news.
breitbart dot com owns.
ALSO I disagree with nearly everything Steinman has said above
ALSO I disagree with nearly everything Steinman has said above
GasBandit
Staff member
You did catch the sarcasm, right?
