+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech (/showthread.php?tid=16641)
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - grayfox - 07-18-2018
Look, I'm not here to debate finer or even frog's-hair points on this or that, just pointing out, AGAIN, that we can be thankful Hillary isn't appointing SCJ's... Kavanaugh's stance is one that closely aligns with what I believe on 2A, even though I'm personally not in favor (as I've said before) of private ownership of RPG's or M1A tanks... there are plenty of militia-style arms available in the arsenal for us to own, to "keep and bear". And, politely stated, no one is really going to convince me otherwise on stuff like that... so if you want to opine on such go ahead -- but I'm still glad it's President Trump supporting the 2A and not Tyrannosaurus-Hillary tearing it down.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - montana - 07-18-2018
grayfox Wrote:Look, I'm not here to debate finer or even frog's-hair points on this or that, just pointing out, AGAIN, that we can be thankful Hillary isn't appointing SCJ's... Kavanaugh's stance is one that closely aligns with what I believe on 2A, even though I'm personally not in favor (as I've said before) of private ownership of RPG's or M1A tanks... there are plenty of militia-style arms available in the arsenal for us to own, to "keep and bear". And, politely stated, no one is really going to convince me otherwise on stuff like that... so if you want to opine on such go ahead -- but I'm still glad it's President Trump supporting the 2A and not Tyrannosaurus-Hillary tearing it down.
In all seriousness, the way the 2nd A was written and intended, it would include all weapons including RPG's,tanks,etc. The founders created the amendment process to address such concerns like individuals having nukes. The problem is the so called change of such meanings,"the living breathing Constitution mind set" instead of the amendment process. Stan and I have hashed this over many times and I would not wish for anyone to relive such shenanigans, but I understand and agree with your opinion.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - stanc - 07-18-2018
grayfox Wrote:Look, I'm not here to debate finer or even frog's-hair points on this or that, just pointing out, AGAIN, that we can be thankful Hillary isn't appointing SCJ's...Ah, so that was your reason for posting the thread? Okay. It just wasn't readily apparent in the OP what your purpose was.
grayfox Wrote:Kavanaugh's stance is one that closely aligns with what I believe on 2A, even though I'm personally not in favor (as I've said before) of private ownership of RPG's or M1A tanks... there are plenty of militia-style arms available in the arsenal for us to own, to "keep and bear". And, politely stated, no one is really going to convince me otherwise on stuff like that... so if you want to opine on such go ahead -- but I'm still glad it's President Trump supporting the 2A and not Tyrannosaurus-Hillary tearing it down.Well, I would characterize Trump more as ignoring the 2A, than "supporting" it. But yes, I agree even that is better than having Hillary in power and actively trying to tear it down.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - stanc - 07-18-2018
montana Wrote:In all seriousness, the way the 2nd A was written and intended, it would include all weapons including RPG's,tanks,etc.As written, yes, it clearly draws no lines as to type(s) of arms that can be kept and borne. So, not only are RPGs and tanks included, but even stealth bombers, nerve agents, ICBMs, nukes, and more.
However, I still question what you and others insist is the intent of the 2A, because that supposed purpose of the RKBA is conspicuously absent from both the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
montana Wrote:The founders created the amendment process to address such concerns like individuals having nukes. The problem is the so called change of such meanings,"the living breathing Constitution mind set" instead of the amendment process. Stan and I have hashed this over many times and I would not wish for anyone to relive such shenanigans...
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - bj139 - 07-19-2018
Maybe if you can "bear" arms they should be legal. M16, yes. 155mm howitzer, no.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - stanc - 07-19-2018
bj139 Wrote:Maybe if you can "bear" arms they should be legal. M16, yes. 155mm howitzer, no.Gosh, you're right. The Second Amendment does say "...the right of the people to keep and bear only such Arms as can be carried on the person, shall not be infringed."
Sarcasm aside, if the Founders meant (as many here insist) for the people to be armed so as to be able to fight a government turned tyrannical, why would they restrict the populace to rifles and pistols? That would put the people at an enormous disadvantage for going up against government forces equipped with artillery, armored vehicles, and other advanced weaponry.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - LR1955 - 07-19-2018
Stan:
Keep this thread on track.
This thread is about a single and very interesting decision that Judge Kavanaugh made and has nothing to do with civil war or revolution.
Again, either stick to the topic or do not post.
For all others here, do not bait Stan.
LR55
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - stanc - 07-20-2018
LR1955 Wrote:Stan:Gene,
Keep this thread on track.
This thread is about a single and very interesting decision that Judge Kavanaugh made and has nothing to do with civil war or revolution.
Again, either stick to the topic or do not post.
I cannot keep the thread on track by myself. I attempted to get it back on topic in post #20. Everyone else continued to post about other subjects.
But, I will try again: Since there are categories of speech which are banned, what is the significance of his comparison to banning classes of arms?
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - montana - 07-20-2018
stanc Wrote:Gene,
I cannot keep the thread on track by myself. I attempted to get it back on topic in post #20. Everyone else continued to post about other subjects.
But, I will try again: Since there are categories of speech which are banned, what is the significance of his comparison to banning classes of arms?
I tried to make the point that speech in of itself was not banned, "but the misuse of certain speech for the purpose to cause harm" is illegal. The words and speech in of itself is not banned unless used for harmful and illegal purpose. Banning classes of firearms, "when not used to cause harm or for illegal purpose" should not be banned in of itself. Rules for safe storage, shooting, carry, etc are rules for safe, firearm use and ownership, but are not laws banning classes of firearms. Banning classes of speech such as, "personal opinions on, religion, politics, immigration, homo sexuality,etc is like banning classes of firearms. Whether they cause harm or not they are banned. These classes of speech are banned in many so called friendly European nations, but not in the US. This is what his meaning of banning classes of arms is like banning classes of speech. It is the use of harmful speech that is banned, not the subject or class of speech that is banned.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - stanc - 07-20-2018
montana Wrote:I tried to make the point that speech in of itself was not banned, "but the misuse of certain speech for the purpose to cause harm" is illegal. The words and speech in of itself is not banned unless used for harmful and illegal purpose. Banning classes of firearms, "when not used to cause harm or for illegal purpose" should not be banned in of itself. Rules for safe storage, shooting, carry, etc are rules for safe, firearm use and ownership, but are not laws banning classes of firearms. Banning classes of speech such as, "personal opinions on, religion, politics, immigration, homo sexuality,etc is like banning classes of firearms. Whether they cause harm or not they are banned. These classes of speech are banned in many so called friendly European nations, but not in the US. This is what his meaning of banning classes of arms is like banning classes of speech. It is the use of harmful speech that is banned, not the subject or class of speech that is banned.I don't know what Kavanaugh means, but it seems pretty clear that you are conflating topics of discussion with categories of speech.
Religion, politics, immigration, etc, are topics of discussion. Expressing opinions and stating facts are examples of categories of speech.
Categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment are listed here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
Since some categories of speech are banned, if Kavanaugh is saying that what is permissible under the 1A applies to the 2A, then classes of arms can be banned. Which, in reality, is the case.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - montana - 07-20-2018
stanc Wrote:I don't know what Kavanaugh means, but it seems pretty clear that you are conflating topics of discussion with categories of speech.
Religion, politics, immigration, etc, are topics of discussion. Expressing opinions and stating facts are examples of categories of speech.
Categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment are listed here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
Since some categories of speech are banned, if Kavanaugh is saying that what is permissible under the 1A applies to the 2A, then classes of arms can be banned. Which, in reality, is the case.
These are TOPICS or CLASSIFICATIONS of speech: They are only illegal when used for the purpose to harm.
obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Hate speech is a classification or "opinion" topic of speech the extreme left is trying to make illegal, even though it is an opinion. A hate crime could be classified as a "THOUGHT CRIME" since a person is punished for their thoughts during the act of a crime, but it is not described "classified" as such. Using a play on words is one of the tools the extreme left uses to gain control over peoples freedoms of thoughts and actions.
I believe I was quite clear about this on my last post, so we will have to agree to disagree.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - bj139 - 07-20-2018
bj139 Wrote:Maybe if you can "bear" arms they should be legal. M16, yes. 155mm howitzer, no.
Notice the amendment is written "keep AND bear" not "keep OR bear".
If you cannot carry it, it can be made illegal for an individual to own. Interesting.
I hope I am not opening a can of worms for all you wannabe nuke owners.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - JASmith - 07-20-2018
bj139 Wrote:Notice the amendment is written "keep AND bear" not "keep OR bear".
If you cannot carry it, it can be made illegal for an individual to own. Interesting.
I hope I am not opening a can of worms for all you wannabe nuke owners.
We may need to look and the meaning of bear in the context of the 2A and the customary definition as used in the late 18th century.
Much like the word gay, the word bear may well have a different meaning today than when the 3 Musketeers was written. I suspect that the evolution of the meaning of bear has not gone though as complete a transformation, however.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - grayfox - 07-20-2018
I am not an expert on legalities of "class" vs "topic", I tend to agree with Montana in that his approach is more realistic. However, again my main point is that once again we have a nominee who is eminently more receptive to keeping an honoring 2A than we would if the heretofore-mentioned loser had won.
One can debate all day long whether a "category" or topic is this or that. I think there are clearly categories of speech that are banned in other countries, ie, Christian speech and Bibles in strict Muslim countries like Afghanistan (I know from friends there), plus even death sentences for trying to advance such "speech", even though exceptionally low-key and private. Political opposition speech in Russia. And several other countries as well, ie, a couple of African ones come to mind. We lost a good friend and colleague in Afghanistan who was a missionary to poor women, like I said, under the radar and low-key and very one on one... not public or inflammatory. She's dead for her service. I have another friend who was picked up by the State police (a different country) and virtually thrown in jail b/c they deigned to print an invitation to a meeting to discuss (non-muslim) religion. The message to him was very clear.
And in Hitler's Germany, the mere possession of a weapon was banned and severe punishment simply by having it in your possession... Jewish, Christian, Polish, non-Nazi "classes" of people.
So not an expert on class vs topic. But examples of real-life ramifications, life and death ramifications, are pretty evident. I don't feel like quibbling over terminology here.
Anything that helps to keep the 2A in force is good as far as I'm concerned.
I imagine that this entire forum would be banned under lib/marxist rule, after all in their minds we are a bunch of deranged mental cases and are advocating against the State. Probably even like-forums in general. In fact the Hitler method was to first deny rights, then to deride, then to de-humanize, then to exterminate, such sub-human types. I do not want that in our country and the 2A is a great bulwark against it.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - bj139 - 07-20-2018
JASmith Wrote:We may need to look and the meaning of “bear” in the context of the 2A and the customary definition as used in the late 18th century.
Much like the word “gay”, the word “bear” may well have a different meaning today than when the 3 Musketeers was written. I suspect that the evolution of the meaning of “bear” has not gone though as complete a transformation, however.
Yes. Good point.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bear
Bear could mean to possess but it is doubtful the founders would have used "keep" and "bear" for redundancy.
I think carry seems likely.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - stanc - 07-20-2018
montana Wrote:These are TOPICS or CLASSIFICATIONS of speech: They are only illegal when used for the purpose to harm.You conveniently omitted the line directly above the list that you copied: "Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:"
obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
I believe I was quite clear about this on my last post, so we will have to agree to disagree.
You're correct in calling them "classifications," which is a synonym of "categories." However, "topics" is not. And yes, you were clear. Unfortunately, you were also wrong.
Take the Grendel forum, for example. Some topics of discussion are banned (e.g., religion, politics), as are some categories of speech (e.g., obscenities, personal attacks).
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - stanc - 07-20-2018
bj139 Wrote:Notice the amendment is written "keep AND bear" not "keep OR bear".Again, the Second Amendment does not say that arms must be borne on the person.
If you cannot carry it, it can be made illegal for an individual to own.
Even in the Founders time there were carriage-borne artillery and ship-borne cannon.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - stanc - 07-20-2018
grayfox Wrote:I am not an expert on legalities of "class" vs "topic",You don't have to be an expert on legalities. All you need are decent comprehension of written English, a dictionary, and a thesaurus.
grayfox Wrote:However, again my main point is that once again we have a nominee who is eminently more receptive to keeping an honoring 2A than we would if the heretofore-mentioned loser had won.Unfortunately, comparing categories of speech to classes of arms does not prevent the latter from being banned, or mean that Kavanaugh would necessarily be against such a ban.
In all likelihood, Kavanaugh would probably uphold the '86 machine gun ban because automatic weapons are not "in common use."
And you really ought to get over your obsession with Hillary. It's quite irrelevant what she may have done if she had won. She lost.
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - bj139 - 07-20-2018
stanc Wrote:Again, the Second Amendment does not say that arms must be borne on the person.No. It does not.
Are you implying additional meanings which it does not state?
Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a Class of Arms Like Banning a Category of Speech - bj139 - 07-20-2018
stanc Wrote:Again, the Second Amendment does not say that arms must be borne on the person.
Even in the Founders time there were carriage-borne artillery and ship-borne cannon.
I am only trying to understand what is written not to add additional ideas.