http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/17/gun-nut-beat-goes-on Comments On: Gun Nut Beat Goes On by Chicago Fan en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 20:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Bonefish]]> Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:56:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:12:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by CPN]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:50:44 -0800 The Stranger "Silly of you to assume that unbalanced. I asked about 'well regulated' because that is the phrase the anti-gun control folks tend to dodge."

No assumption needed.
You posted it.
#78
"Ok so to you the phrase 'well regulated' applies only to the 'arms' themselves, and has nothing to do with the 'militia'."

So, either you did not read the 2nd Amendment or you somehow thought that the phrase "A well regulated Militia, ..." did not refer to the militia when the word "Militia" is right there.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:37:17 -0800 The Stranger
But again I thank you for your clarification that "well regulated Militia" means legislation can address the "functioning and calibration" of not only the Arms themselves but militias as well, both collective and individual. As intended and defined by our 18 century forefathers. You've been very helpful.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:10:56 -0800 The Stranger "I have indeed read the 2nd amendment my unbalanced friend and I had questions"

And yet you did not know that the phrase was "A well regulated Militia, ..."
You claimed that the "well regulated" phrase was referring to the guns themselves.
So no, I don't think you had read it.


Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:52:31 -0800 The Stranger
I have also read the link you keep posting to a serious of quotes from around the same time period the Constitution was written providing examples of the phrase "well regulated" in sentences. Followed by a 21st century man's attempt at a definition of the phrase "well regulated" based on those examples of usage. Interesting I'll grant but as I said examples of usage by themselves are not definitions. So that didn't get us any closer to knowing what those living in the 18 century understood the definition of "well regulated" to be.

I accepted your definition of "well regulated". To refer to the "function and calibration" of the object, arms, whatever. The definition then changed to "well regulated" referring to the "militia" i.e. people, individually or collectively.

I can now only conclude based on your last response that "well regulated" refers to all three. It refers to the object (arms/guns), militias comprised of a group of people, and militias comprised of one individual. I'm good with that.

In fact it actually makes sense to me. So long as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So long as the people have access to them. We can pass legislation regarding the "function and calibration" of the arms themselves (the object, guns). We can pass legislation regarding the "function and calibration" of groups of people owning guns collectively, militias comprised of more then one person. We can pass legislation regarding the "function and calibration" of "militias of one" individuals.

In fact it gives people multiple routes to bearing arms, they can own them collectively (a cost effective way for me to get at a gun I might not be able to afford, so long as I follow the rules of the group I join) or I can be a militia of one, state my intention to be so and register. I like it.

Plus we can pass legislation regarding the arms themselves to ensure they are "functioning and calibrated as expected". I like that too.

Thank you for clearing all that up for me my unbalanced friend. Your definition of "well regulated" has really cleared things up for me.


Posted by Machiavelli was framed]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:33:58 -0800 The Stranger
The bottom line for you (and the NRA, who hand you your talking points) is that the phrase must be rendered neuter and meaningless, like so much window dressing. You would have us believe that they threw words around the Bill of Rights just to be long winded. Just for the pleasure of hearing the sound of their own voices as they read them. As if they didn't take their task seriously?

No. No doubt a clown such as yourself would have done such a shoddy job, but the Bill of Rights was written by serious, thoughtful men. They wrote what needed to be written, no more. The phrase is there because it has the force of law; because the exercise and boundaries of our rights would be fundamentally different if they'd left those words out.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:17:25 -0800 The Stranger "oh dear it seems I misunderstood you, ..."

Well I did only post that link FIVE times.
Maybe a sixth time will be enough for you to read it?
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…

"I just assumed that 'property' referred to the arms not to people since I don't consider people property."

And yet the 2nd Amendment begins with the phrase "A well regulated Militia, ...".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…
And you were questioning what "well regulated" meant.
Yet somehow you missed the very next word which is "Militia".
And so you decided to substitute "guns" for "Militia" because ... well that's what you do.

"I suspect though you my unbalanced friend would tell me that every individual is a militia of one."

Well you could do the research on your own but that isn't going to happen, is it?
After all, it's only been 85 posts here and you still haven't read the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:46:55 -0800 The Stranger
I think I understand you now. "A well regulated Militia, ..." with "well regulated" meaning the function and calibration of the militia, in other words, people not the arms themselves. Ok, the function and calibration of people hmmmm tricky, to me a militia is a group of people not individual person.

If militia is a group of people and that group of people is "well regulated" i.e functional and calibrated as a group, which I guess would mean they have rules and regulations by which the govern themselves, then they collectively could have arms. Like say the police, or the Knights of Columbus, the Black Panthers, ect... but individuals could only have guns within those "well regulated" groups. Ok I'm cool with that.

I suspect though you my unbalanced friend would tell me that every individual is a militia of one. So the trick would be determining whether the individual was "well regulated" i.e. functional and calibrated. Seems to me that would require some sort of screening process on the individual level, like say back ground checks, registration, gun safety classes, periodic renewals like we do with drivers licenses and so on. But I'm good with that.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:29:06 -0800 The Stranger "yes unbalanced, you've pointed that out ad nauseum."

And yet you felt the need to bring it up.

"Tell me, have they also pronounced on your precious little definition of 'well-regulated'?"

Perhaps you can do some research and find what the SCOTUS has ruled on that as well?
Is there a reason you keep bringing up items that the SCOTUS has already ruled upon?
Is it because you do not know what the SCOTUS has ruled upon with regards to the 2nd Amendment?

Maybe this will help you do some research so you can engage on a more informed level.
www.google.com
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:06:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by emma's bee]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:56:02 -0800 The Stranger "I have a great deal for you: you get to keep your definition of 'well-regulated' from 1787 and I get to restrict you and your gun nut friends to the small arms that were available then."

Perhaps you can do some research and find where the SCOTUS has already ruled upon the private ownership of semi-automatic guns?
Yes? Can you do that?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:47:34 -0800 The Stranger "Ok so to you the phrase 'well regulated' applies only to the 'arms' themselves, and has nothing to do with the 'militia'."

The phrase is "A well regulated Militia, ..."
So you don't even know the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment.
Not surprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:42:37 -0800 The Stranger Posted by emma's bee]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:42:37 -0800 The Stranger
It's tragic.

It's also strange how they don't focus on the circumstances of life surrounding it. They don't go into the economics of the school. Maybe next week's part 2 will address it.

But, there is a Google+ review of the high school which complains about the principal...but also says she ran into problems and her and her family had to live in a shelter for a while. This demonstrates how tenuous life is for these kids, and the families as a whole.

It's really distressing.
Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:33:45 -0800 The Stranger
True those usage example are followed by an interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "well regulated" within those examples by a 21st. century writer. But seriously that just runs us around in a circle.

Ok so to you the phrase "well regulated" applies only to the "arms" themselves, and has nothing to do with the "militia". Alright. So we can then pass legislation addressing the functional features of the arms and their calibration.

Cool so we can pass legislation requiring safeties on guns, trigger locks, finger print recognition software on the grip so it can only be fired by its rightful owner. We can pass legislation with regards to the caliber of the gun, and it's firing capacity. Legislation regarding the ammunition would be ok. None of those things would violate your definition of "well regulated" since the arms would still function as expected.

Good to know thank you.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:30:25 -0800 The Stranger "In your own words, not ones you googled up, but your own."

I've already done so. But I can copy-paste again.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.ht…
It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

As I predicted, that is the FIFTH time I have provided that for you.
And I predict that there will be a SIXTH time.

"There is no equivocation here, it is quite clear."

Yes there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocatio…
You keep trying to use a different definition of "regulated" in the original statement "well regulated Militia".
And you are trying that AGAIN.

"No google links, no cut and paste your own words and thoughts."

Why do you have a problem with supporting documentation?
Is it because you cannot provide any?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:40:23 -0800 The Stranger
"Two other issues deserve mention. Failed national housing policies have really hammered Cook County's African-American communities. The same heavily-segregated African-American communities that top the homicide statistics dominate the list of communities checker-boarded with foreclosed or abandoned properties. It's hard to stabilize a community to address crime when this is the economic reality. I myself live in a predominantly African-American neighborhood within the south suburbs. Many houses on our neighborhood stand empty or are in various stages of foreclosure. It wouldn't surprise me if median household wealth among African Americans here has gone negative."
Posted by randoma]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:26:47 -0800 The Stranger I just read this terrific piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic regarding urban gangs and gun violence:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch…

I recommend it.
Posted by lark]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:39:18 -0800 The Stranger
In your own words, not ones you googled up, but your own.

What does "well regulated" mean to you and how do you propose to achieve it? Answer as if you were living in 1787 if you wish, all I ask is you use your own words.

Since you've clearly thought about this a lot this shouldn't be difficult for you, or perhaps you haven't really thought about in any detail but just parrot current NRA propaganda.

There is no equivocation here, it is quite clear. "Well regulated" what does it mean to you and how would you achieve it? In your own words please.

No google links, no cut and paste your own words and thoughts.

Betting you once again won't answer but will continue to cry about how unfair the question is.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:20:08 -0800 The Stranger
Yes.
Posted by Patricia Kayden]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:51:15 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:39:41 -0800 The Stranger
As we've discussed before, Vermont doesn't have a problem, Virginia doesn't, Wyoming doesn't (all places with high levels of firearm ownership). New York City does, Chicago does, Los Angeles does (all places with theoretically low levels of firearm ownership and high levels of income inequality).

Maybe the problem is related to other factors? Maybe?

I've said it before, I'll say it again - if you 'gun-control-nuts' spent as much energy on raising the minimum wage to $12-15/hour, as you do on feel-good-gun-control-measures, you'd probably save more lives. If you stopped the war on drugs and spent that money on rehab and counseling, you'd save even more lives, not to mention we'd have a whole new revenue stream.

This is where you start talking about suicide rates, even though, as we've discussed before, areas with high rates of firearm ownership and suicide are also very rural areas which also have high rates of suicide even in similar population densities with lower rates of firearm ownership.

Incidentally, in your response @11, you state that the NRA only allows one inspection per year. That's true - the ATF can only have one WARRANTLESS inspection per year. If they have enough reason to get a warrant, they can have as many inspections as they want. If they have nothing to go on, they're limited to one fishing expedition.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/factshee…
Posted by randoma]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:45:10 -0800 The Stranger
I would. In both cases.
Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:43:47 -0800 The Stranger