Author Topic: A 100% access, super-strict liability approach to guns in America  (Read 1124 times)

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: A 100% access, super-strict liability approach to guns in America
« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2018, 10:45:03 AM »
Quote
The Constitution hold supreme, until or unless the points brought forward in the DoI become relevant, at which point those that rebel are the ones "in the right" from the perspective of the Founders.

Nope. The DoI may be a cherished part of our history, but there's no magic wand anyone can waive and claim that suddenly "the DoI is relevant" and therefore you can overturn the legal foundations of the United States, which are built on the Constitution.

I am suprised at the level of debate on this topic. Does anyone on this loop who has ever called themselves a Constitutional originalist want to chime in?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: A 100% access, super-strict liability approach to guns in America
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2018, 10:53:26 AM »
I am suprised at the level of debate on this topic. Does anyone on this loop who has ever called themselves a Constitutional originalist want to chime in?

It's a pity that Seneca isn't on the boards any more, as he was probably the closest to that here and maybe could have offered something on this topic.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: A 100% access, super-strict liability approach to guns in America
« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2018, 10:58:44 AM »
Quote
The Constitution hold supreme, until or unless the points brought forward in the DoI become relevant, at which point those that rebel are the ones "in the right" from the perspective of the Founders.

Nope. The DoI may be a cherished part of our history, but there's no magic wand anyone can waive and claim that suddenly "the DoI is relevant" and therefore you can overturn the legal foundations of the United States, which are built on the Constitution.

I am suprised at the level of debate on this topic. Does anyone on this loop who has ever called themselves a Constitutional originalist want to chime in?

You're ignoring this thing called "precedent." That said, you are correct, the Constitution itself makes no provision for those who rebel against the Constitution. The "problem" there is how "reality" would work in such a case that a large enough portion of the population decided that the Federal Government, which ostensibly "represents" both that document and the will of the people, was in fact the one who was "Rebelling" against the Constitution.

So then you get to split hairs over treason against the United States Constitution, vs treason against the United States Government. Remember, federal officials swear oaths to defend the Constitution, not the Government itself.  8)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: A 100% access, super-strict liability approach to guns in America
« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2018, 11:34:17 AM »
I've come to understand that I probably would have been a Loyalist during the revolution. I would have sympathized with the soldiers who came under attack by a Boston mob and were forced to defend themselves. I would have complained about the mob that stormed a ship and destroyed private property. I probably wouldn't have gotten all worked up about the Stamp Act which had minimal economic impact. I would have advocated petitioning the King, and more importantly Parliament which existed partly to curb the tyrant authority of the King.

That was a very hard thing to admit to myself, given the nearly religious reverence in which the founders of this country are held.

I think I would have felt the actions of the government were wrong, but would have scoffed at the idea that armed rebellion was a good idea. Both because of the costs of war, but also because of the disparity in military might. And we would have lost quite soundly if the French had not gotten involved.

So, yes, having some guns might replay that scenario, but only if you also have a powerful friend with a navy and the ability to enforce no-fly zones. There were plenty of guns in Northern Ireland, but that revolution didn't make much progress even with the backing of a lot of American private citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic next door.

As for defending the Constitution, you can look at a lot of violations. A relatively obvious one, to me, is civil forfeiture without due process. The government literally stealing a citizens property. The founders set up the Supreme Court to try and stop that sort of thing, but time and again they give it a pass. But I don't think I could advocate blasting away at cops in a traffic stop to prevent it.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: A 100% access, super-strict liability approach to guns in America
« Reply #54 on: March 12, 2018, 04:45:08 PM »
Quote
The Constitution hold supreme, until or unless the points brought forward in the DoI become relevant, at which point those that rebel are the ones "in the right" from the perspective of the Founders.

Nope. The DoI may be a cherished part of our history, but there's no magic wand anyone can waive and claim that suddenly "the DoI is relevant" and therefore you can overturn the legal foundations of the United States, which are built on the Constitution.

Actually, it's a bit more relevant than you imply, since our Constitution forms a limited government and is clearly an expression of the will of the people.  It's subordinate to our innate rights.  That said, I agree generally with the idea that a documentary law system is unlikely to endorse and enshrine a power to ignore such system.

Quote
I am suprised at the level of debate on this topic. Does anyone on this loop who has ever called themselves a Constitutional originalist want to chime in?

I think you've seen several such arguments, that's exactly why people have been quoting the founders to you. 

But I'm fascinated by your incredibly strict construction here - is that just for convenience?

Do you think the entire regulatory system of the United States is invalid since it's a direct violation of Article I, Section I of the Constitution?  Do you think the court orders issued on a nation wide basis that purport to overrule the President's exercise of executive authority are invalid as they are direct violate Section 2?

What about Article VI Section 3, many Senators have implied if not flat out said that the religious beliefs of judicial candidates are relevant to whether they should be put on the bench.

I thought you believed in a living constitution.

In any event, if the Constitution becomes a tool of oppression then it is no longer valid, as it is only an expression of the will of the people and can not legally survive the loss of their support.  That said, the flaw inherent in any democratic/republican form of government is the concept of majority rules, which tends to legitimize even oppression when it's the majority position.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: A 100% access, super-strict liability approach to guns in America
« Reply #55 on: March 12, 2018, 08:34:29 PM »
Quote
The Constitution hold supreme, until or unless the points brought forward in the DoI become relevant, at which point those that rebel are the ones "in the right" from the perspective of the Founders.

Nope. The DoI may be a cherished part of our history, but there's no magic wand anyone can waive and claim that suddenly "the DoI is relevant" and therefore you can overturn the legal foundations of the United States, which are built on the Constitution.

Actually, it's a bit more relevant than you imply, since our Constitution forms a limited government and is clearly an expression of the will of the people.  It's subordinate to our innate rights.  That said, I agree generally with the idea that a documentary law system is unlikely to endorse and enshrine a power to ignore such system.

Further, it should also be pointed out that most of the people involved in the rebellion of the colonies, were delegates (largely) selected by their respective colonial legislative bodies. (With a couple exceptions, IIRC, not sure how those colonies were represented)

So it also cycles back to vague allusions to that problematic and rather ephemeral 10th Amendment. Even by the DoI standard, it isn't clear that individuals have the right to rebel. But they certainly do think that "democratically representative organizations"(Colonial/State governments) do. But that then brings us into the Civil War, which in all actuality sets no legal standard as to a states right to rebel/secede. As I recall, SCotUS never actually ruled on that matter so no legal precedent exists.

What you do have is the "Military solution precedent" where an armed rebellion broke out which failed to garner sufficient public support(or apathy) in order to be able to succeed in their goal. As they initiated the military action, rather than the Federal Government, it turned into a battle of collective wills(And war production capabilities, in which, the south was greatly outclassed).

Basically, while preserving the option for armed revolt is important, armed rebellion is a poor option to place anywhere near the top of your list of options.

And you're delusional about people hoping to defeat the US Military in such a scenario, going toe to toe with the Joint Forces isn't on the table. The hope would be that should such an event occur, the military would essentially remove itself from the equation(by whatever means), or take up arms on their side--because their cause is "on the right side of history/justice/liberty." (Much like the South thought they had in their favor when most of the Union's top Generals of the time were all Southerners who sided with them out of loyalty to their state. Even though they clearly were on the wrong side of both justice and liberty, and ultimately history as well)