Probably not, I joined because of this forum on the Colorado Bill and I'm not really a joiner.
Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted
- Thread starter Dsnow9
- Start date
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,910
So wait, you joined but not really? Because you’re a self-proclaimed one man wolf pack. Though you are looking for others of similar thinking in solidarity against CO’s proposed bill. So are you a Bronco’s fan? I think Swiss cheese is really under appreciated though I prefer hard cheddar.
NAHMINT
Well-known member
DEAL WITH MY WIFE !!!! 5'10'' OF ATTITUDE!
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,910
You guys got SASS up North too?
Nick87
Well-known member
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Despite my better judgment, I return to answer as promised.
First of all, I view Steven's argument as an insincere reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. And is a routine misreading of the textualist approach to constitutional interpretation.
In broad generality, there are two approaches by the current justices to sussing out constitutional meaning - the textualist/originalist vs the pragmatic/living constitution approaches.
When justices apply a textualist/originalist approach it ends up feeling very much like contract interpretation. Where the goal is to find a reading of the plain text in light of a reasonable understanding at the time of what was agreed to by both parties (govt. and a free people). This understanding can be educated by future actions/events, but must not stray too far from a reasonable but fairly literal reading of the text of the agreement.
This appeals to folks who start with the assumption that the government's power is granted to it by the people and it is limited by such voluntary acquiescence. So, if a free people said, they want to cede certain economic liberties to have a government that regulates interstate commerce for the benefit of all, but do not cede to the government the right to usurp our individual religious beliefs by establishing a state religion, then both of these "conditions" of governance must be given full respect. In this approach, it is illogical to add or subtract provisions of this "social contract" outside of its text. It is logical to extend conventional understandings of firearms, but illogical to suggest it is no longer a relevant or appropriate right. The solution for a changing world is to amend the contract, not make things up. The problem with this approach is that it can be too slow to reflect the actual will of the people.
When justices apply pragmatic/living approaches, they seek to glean some ever-evolving sentiment/principles that can then be overlayed with the old/obsolete language. If the constitution lacks a provision around privacy or marriage or abortion, one just needs to see the document's overarching commitment to liberty and dignity, and walla, a penumbra of unenumerated rights appear. If society is harmed by gun violence, it is convenient to not extend strict scrutiny to the 2A.
This appeals to folks who are comfortable with an active government and assume individual/government boundaries should bend to the common will of the moment. Government is not limited by written acquiescence from the governed, but rather is an everpresent presupposed reality that needs to be flexible in pursuing group good even if the topics were never subject to common prior understanding/acquiescence. While this can be more flexible and faster to adapt than the textualist approach, it essentially grants vast power to 5 unelected judges. Many are willing to trade this type of power for the sake of unhampered "progress". I for one am not.
It is well understood that Stevens rejects a textualist approach, and so he tries to mock it via various logical fallacy approaches (strawman, reductio ad absurdum, etc). I would prefer he just be honest - as one of the anointed nine he does not feel bound to the original alignment between the government and its people and thinks the 2A is archaic and harmful and therefore he would extend it no heightened scrutiny and as long a gun control provision is reasonably related to an appropriate interest of government (public safety) then it stands.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
This philosophical question fills shelves of libraries. But that is not what this post is about. It is about what a written constitution provides vs a proposed bill. If you want to discuss the concept of an unwritten unalienable right to gun possession I suggest you start a different thread.
But in short - (a) there is no common understanding of unalienable rights - some are big on rights to housing, food, and medicine - do you think individual lists of unalienable rights are a good form of governance? (b) if there were to be such a list, my guess is things like life and liberty would be on it and yet we have prisons and death penalty, so even unalienable rights are not unalienable in practice.
And if you want to go biblical -- give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's - Christians cannot divorce themselves from worldly governance.
Last edited:
NAHMINT
Well-known member
Yep, but I'm not letting her touch my Ruger old army conversion .45 ''long'' COLT.....
She can shot that .357 SMITH all she likes.....
p.s. I remember way back when,SASS was just starting up,and advertised in OUTDOOR LIFE for members.....I lived in Quebec in eastern canada, and had no money for the membership fee......heck,could have had a 3 didget badge #,,,,,,,,,such is like.
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,910
Definition on this bill of an assault weapon was way too broad.
There is no definition, any weapon is an “assault” weapon.
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,910
Oh! Of course, have another case of frags. I am confident your militia is well-regulated.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I don't support the bill, but this assertion is simply false. There are definitions that are probably illogical or distinctions without practical utility, but it is defined. 85% of the firearms I own are clearly outside of the definition. Again, I think this is dumb legislation, but no need to be misleading about what it says.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Nick87
Well-known member
All couldn't any weapon be considered an assault weapon or item for that matter depending how you use it?
rjthehunter
Well-known member
How much $ are you spending monthly on online news articles??? Denver Post and startribune for sure lol
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Dems are so much better than conservatives at strategy. Knowing this election cycle is a referendum on abortion, they've successfully distanced themselves from meaningful gun control. Gotta tip my hat to them.
I still hope maybe the Biden DOJ will get too high on their own supply and "Leroy Jenkins" the whole thing for them, and rally the gun rights folks, but doesn't look like it will happen. Oh well.
I still hope maybe the Biden DOJ will get too high on their own supply and "Leroy Jenkins" the whole thing for them, and rally the gun rights folks, but doesn't look like it will happen. Oh well.
exactly my point. Is a knife an assault weapon? What about feet and hands?
El Jason
Well-known member
Legal definitions matter, and semantics don’t.
Similar threads
