Buying a Vehicle that was not good

The California Educational System certainly did a number on you, didn't they?
 
Jason_Ryock said:
Wouldn't that be a violation of the Federal (for lack of a better word) Constitution? Doesn't it protect the right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Except it is much easier to get something through the system on the state level. But, as coincidence would have it, a similar local ban in Washington DC is right this very moment being challenged on the grounds that it violates the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has already heard the arguments and is currently in the deliberation phase of the trial. A decision is expected within the year. The result there will either be a major victory or defeat for freedom in this country, even for the uneducated in Connecticut.
 
jaeger said:
Im sure that will be next. This state scares me, What is it in frisco with the gun law now? you can only own one if you are law enforcment or a celebrity? Didnt they pass that?
Click to expand...

San Francisco has pretty much always done their own thing - it's sort of the 'home' for Radicals in the state. Like when they decided to legalize gay marriage - which was later over turned and nulled at the state level.

That was a violation of the state constitution.
 
Jason_Ryock said:
Like when they decided to legalize gay marriage - which was later over turned and nulled at the state level.

That was a violation of the state constitution.
Click to expand...

How did you go from some guy having car trouble - to the ethics of gay marriage?

Get back on topic or go back to whatever it is you people do, like Family Guy or watching crappy sports for jerks.
 
Yeah, I want to hear more about how women are such snakes and how they rig the system against working-class [strike]rapists[/strike] innocent men like yourselves.
 
A decision is expected within the year. The result there will either be a major victory or defeat for freedom in this country, even for the uneducated in Connecticut.
Click to expand...

Oh blargh. This is the problem with stupid people: phrasing something in an obnoxiously biased manner isn't the same thing as an argument. I support about as broad an interpretation of the Second Amendment as you can possibly imagine, but I'm offended on some core level that anyone who posts here could be dumb enough to phrase the debate in these terms. Be less stupid, be less stupid, BE LESS GODDAMN STUPID.
 
Beyond that even - Connecticut was found the third highest educated state in the nation, according to Morgan Quitno’s annual reference book. To say the "uneducated" just makes McGruff sound like the awful baby seal killer he is.
 
Beyond that even - Connecticut was found the third highest educated state in the nation, according to Morgan Quitno’s annual reference book. To say the "uneducated" just makes McGruff sound like the awful baby seal killer he is.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not so much that -- McGruff can passive-aggressively snipe at you all he wants and lose only common respect. It's the whole 'freedom' thing that's inane. When you cloak your side of a long and interesting debate whose every side has various merits in such cheesey knee-jerk rhetoric then you're just plain worthless.

I believe that I should be able to own any sort of gun I want and that the Constitution supports this belief... but that doesn't make someone who *doesn't* see this into some kind of monster-loving fascist. It's a lot more important to understand historical interpretation and what its codification might mean for all aspects of Constitutional law than it is to foam at the mouth over idiot buzzwords.
 
Hey, don't steal my thunder! I just wanted to sound smarter than McGruff - the one person everyone on the board is smarter than. :(
 
Passive-aggressive sniping notwithstanding, I'm not sure what part of my brief statement qualifies as rhetoric? The 2nd amendment issue is at the very core the struggle to maintain Constitutional freedom in this country, I'm not sure how someone with your stated beliefs would disagree?
 
LeHah said:
How did you go from some guy having car trouble - to the ethics of gay marriage?

Get back on topic or go back to whatever it is you people do, like Family Guy or watching crappy sports for jerks.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out the irrationality that seems to be present in San Francisco. They have the impression they can make whatever laws they want to regardless of the State or Federal Constitution.
 
McGruff said:
Well, if having a passionate opinion about an important issue is a crime, then I guess I'm guilty.
Click to expand...

It's the specious negative argument that's the problem. The phrasing of something so incredibly complex that's being debated by so many intelligent people on all sides in such stupid and incorrect weasel terms. 'Whatever *I* want means 'freedom' and whatever anyone else thinks is evil and wrong!' Yeah, whatever.

This isn't good versus evil, GI Joe versus Cobra, swiss versus rochefort, Star Trek versus Battlestar Galactica, etc. It's a very important-to-understand discussion on Constitutional interpretation, and phrasing it as anything but is removing yourself from your right to an opinion in the matter. This idiotic my-way-or-I'll-scream-loud-enough-to-drown-the-other-guy-out attitude is exactly what's wrong with modern conservatism. It lessens *my* ability to make an argument because I'm not recieved as some intelligent commentator anymore - I'm lumped in with you and your box of earplugs and ability to sound pig-calls.

The argument in question isn't going to come down to a discussion of fundamental human freedoms and painting it as such just makes the people who agree with you look dumb. We're talking about a debate that's going to involve things as obscure as comma placement, understanding of latin-derived phrase ordering and defining the importance of historical analysis. You have to understand all those things and why they are or are not important to make a reasoned argument -- not be the loudest guy in the room capable of shrieking obvious buzzwords.
 
They have the impression they can make whatever laws they want to regardless of the State or Federal Constitution
Click to expand...

Well, they can -- it's up to the *court* to then decide that these laws are unconstitutional. Obviously you shouldn't keep electing representatives who will waste time passing laws which will come into conflict with the Constitution... but actual government rarely does this without a reason.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
It's the specious negative argument that's the problem. The phrasing of something so incredibly complex that's being debated by so many intelligent people on all sides in such stupid and incorrect weasel terms. 'Whatever *I* want means 'freedom' and whatever anyone else thinks is evil and wrong!' Yeah, whatever.

This isn't good versus evil, GI Joe versus Cobra, swiss versus rochefort, Star Trek versus Battlestar Galactica, etc. It's a very important-to-understand discussion on Constitutional interpretation, and phrasing it as anything but is removing yourself from your right to an opinion in the matter. This idiotic my-way-or-I'll-scream-loud-enough-to-drown-the-other-guy-out attitude is exactly what's wrong with modern conservatism. It lessens *my* ability to make an argument because I'm not recieved as some intelligent commentator anymore - I'm lumped in with you and your box of earplugs and ability to sound pig-calls.

The argument in question isn't going to come down to a discussion of fundamental human freedoms and painting it as such just makes the people who agree with you look dumb. We're talking about a debate that's going to involve things as obscure as comma placement, understanding of latin-derived phrase ordering and defining the importance of historical analysis. You have to understand all those things and why they are or are not important to make a reasoned argument -- not be the loudest guy in the room capable of shrieking obvious buzzwords.
Click to expand...

Well, the way I see it is someone asked a brief question, LeHah made a typically snide comment in response, then I briefly answered said question while admittedly throwing in some passive-aggressive sniping.

You're right that I didn't write some lengthy dissertation about the nuances of the gun control debate, and I didn't think it was needed. I can certainly counter any point that someone with a different opinion cares to offer with "reasoned argument", in fact it's easy - just about anyone can do that simply because the facts are on our side. So what I did was make a quick statement that, when the complexities of the debate are boiled down, was one hundred percent true. Just because something might be considered a buzzword doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't also have merit. Now normally at this point I would say something like 'can't we just agree to disagree', but since we seem to be pretty much on the same page here, can't we agree to agree?

Bandit LOAF said:
Well, they can -- it's up to the *court* to then decide that these laws are unconstitutional. Obviously you shouldn't keep electing representatives who will waste time passing laws which will come into conflict with the Constitution... but actual government rarely does this without a reason.
Click to expand...

Except San Francisco in particular prides itself on being "progressively" anti-establishment. The voters there are not going to throw out a politician for wasting time passing illegal laws as long as those laws make the right PC statement in their eyes, that's exactly what the people there want. A good example of that would be how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (based in SF) is the court with the most overturned decisions by higher courts in the entire country. These particular judges are generally known to make their decisions based on their personal opinions rather than case precedent or the letter of the law. Time and time again their rulings are later struck down, but the judges still manage to keep their jobs.
 
You're right that I didn't write some lengthy dissertation about the nuances of the gun control debate, and I didn't think it was needed. I can certainly counter any point that someone with a different opinion cares to offer with "reasoned argument", in fact it's easy - just about anyone can do that simply because the facts are on our side. So what I did was make a quick statement that, when the complexities of the debate are boiled down, was one hundred percent true. Just because something might be considered a buzzword doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't also have merit. Now normally at this point I would say something like 'can't we just agree to disagree', but since we seem to be pretty much on the same page here, can't we agree to agree?
Click to expand...

This is all more reasonable than the they're-all-evil bit, but it's still flawed - there's no 100% solid argument and especially not when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. Understanding both sides and being able to play up and play down particular things is key to changing anyones opinions.

The fact of the matter is that the language of the Second Ammendment can be taken several different ways (is arms modifying militia or are they separate thoughts?) and doubly so if it's viewed through a new historical interpretation (should 'arms' mean assault rifles and F-18s or the flintlock muskets and swords that the framers would have imagined?)

The trick, then, is to make the case for several things: classical conservatism (we've done it this way for 200 years, there's no compelling reason to change), an interpretation of the document as wide-ranging and living (the framers were smart enough to know that arms would come to encompass other things, as evidenced at X, Y and Z points) and the effect a change in interpretation would have on everything else (ie, if 'arms' means swords then musn't man mean white land-owner? and so forth...)

Then you have to downplay the flaws in your argument. If 'arms' can't be limited to swords and flintlocks... then how do you set the standard? Should we all be allowed access to thermonuclear weapons? If militia is the word being modified (and lets face it - comma or not, it is) then how can we define militia in the broadest possible sense?

It's a very nuanced and difficult thing, and the ability of 'our' side to make a proper argument is hurt by all the loud arm-flailing rhetoric. (... note that I'm sure someone with an actual background in constitutional law can come along and say that I'm being far too simplistic...)

Except San Francisco in particular prides itself on being "progressively" anti-establishment. The voters there are not going to throw out a politician for wasting time passing illegal laws as long as those laws make the right PC statement in their eyes, that's exactly what the people there want. A good example of that would be how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (based in SF) is the court with the most overturned decisions by higher courts in the entire country. These particular judges are generally known to make their decisions based on their personal opinions rather than case precedent or the letter of the law. Time and time again their rulings are later struck down, but the judges still manage to keep their jobs.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're seeing the big picture -- all the San Francisco city councils and the Vermont state legislatures and the liberal-beyond-their-means judges in the country are absolutely necessary to the process. The fact of the matter is that if no one passes these laws in the first place then the process can never move against them.

Every time some city council decides to ban handguns or cheeseburgers then someone ultimately contests it and wins. It forces the people who passed the law to stand behind them and ultimately have them overturned.. and in so doing builds up a big stockpile of legal precedence, which is the most precious thing anyone who wants a basis for a higher court argument can have.

A city council banning cigars as a gimmick for their wine and cheese constituency should be celebrated -- it is the first step on the process that leads to the Supreme Court stating for all time that they can't be banned.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
A city council banning cigars as a gimmick for their wine and cheese constituency should be celebrated -- it is the first step on the process that leads to the Supreme Court stating for all time that they can't be banned.
Click to expand...

If that scenario were guaranteed to always be the case it would be all well and good, and we could all rest easy knowing that justice and common sense would ultimately prevail. But what the Supreme Court decides depends entirely on who happens to be on the court at any given time in history, and that all depends on who happens to be president when a vacancy arises as well as the makeup of the congress which will confirm or deny his nomination. A court heavy with Ginsburgs would probably have a completely different view on your cigar ban than a court full of Thomas'. As it is, the current pending 2nd amendment case is up in the air, and when it is finally decided, will have a huge impact on our rights in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top