PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on incorporation


nick
01-26-2009, 10:45 AM
Correct my reasoning if that's not the case, but would incorporating the 2nd Amendment mean that it is now a recognized civil right? And if so, then would violating it (say, through harassment of UOC people that goes beyond what the law allows the LEOs, firearms seizures without a cause, etc.) mean that the civil servant protection will not apply to such cases, and one can finally go directly after the offenders incourt, as opposed to suing their agencies? It sounds like a much more effective way to get the message across, and without wasting too much of taxpayer money to defend the overreaching government employees against the said taxpayers?

Natty Bumppo
01-26-2009, 10:52 AM
From your mouth, Nick, to God's ear.

Cordially,

Natty

bwiese
01-26-2009, 11:21 AM
A held in our favor Nordyke decision will not be the beginning of the end but end of the beginning. The degree & extent of it will determine how bad subsequent fights will be.

Expect opposition to continue pushing - but that such a ruling may help quell further bad legislation and allow friendly 'fixup' legislation.

nick
01-26-2009, 11:32 AM
Wouldn't incorporation mean that it's a civil right to begin with, whatever shape and form the ruling might be (as long as it involves incorporation)? After all, if they incorporate an Amendment, they don't get to decide how to interpret it, as it's done by the federal courts/Supreme court? Or am I wrong there?

bwiese
01-26-2009, 12:16 PM
Wouldn't incorporation mean that it's a civil right to begin with, whatever shape and form the ruling might be (as long as it involves incorporation)? After all, if they incorporate an Amendment, they don't get to decide how to interpret it, as it's done by the federal courts/Supreme court? Or am I wrong there?

Depending on how things are handed down in Nordyke (i.e, how favorable the decision is to us - there's a risk, albeit small, they could do something weird -perhaps find for the show,but punt on incorporation) you are correct.

But you can't expect the opposition not to try fight it on whatever new specious claims they dig up.

No gates will open up with angels shouting "Hallelujah", it will just make future fights easier and kill some stuff outright.

Liberty1
01-26-2009, 12:46 PM
Expect the opposition to conduct a fighting withdrawal and try to set up new defensive lines (such as Heller allows "reasonable" (prohibition like) regulation to stall our advances until they get the supreme court stacked Obama's way.

Heller was our "Battle of Brittan" or perhaps El Alamein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein). There will be many years of setbacks and victories to come. VE day is a long way off.

Get involved and stay involved!

7x57
01-26-2009, 12:50 PM
Expect the opposition to conduct a fighting withdrawal and try to set up new defensive lines (such as Heller allows "reasonable" (prohibition like) regulation to stall our advances until they get the supreme court stacked Obama's way.


We already know one line of counterattack--the anti-Heller 4 told us. Instead of applying the strict scrutiny appropriate to a constitutionally protected right, they would like to apply a lower level ("balance of interest" was it?) of scrutiny. Just because it's necessary for the public good, you know.

I never understand how highly-educated people can fail to see that if they do such a thing, then eventually a court will allow the same lowered scrutiny for, say the first amendment. "Just because it's necessary for the public good." Idiots, but dangerous ones.

7x57

DDT
01-26-2009, 12:57 PM
I never understand how highly-educated people can fail to see that if they do such a thing, then eventually a court will allow the same lowered scrutiny for, say the first amendment. "Just because it's necessary for the public good." Idiots, but dangerous ones.


Why do you believe they don't know exactly the implications for the other amendments? I would suggest that these people are not idiots at all and to assume as much opens the door to being taken advantage of by underestimating your enemy. Just because they are coming after your guns first doesn't mean they intend to leave your other rights alone. Think about the "fairness doctrine" and you will see it is yet another long slippery slope to fascism. I truly believe that any government with power will eventually try to seize more power. As it seizes more power there is less for the citizens and if every decade and every session they seek more power eventually there is none left for the citizens.

7x57
01-26-2009, 1:14 PM
Why do you believe they don't know exactly the implications for the other amendments?....I truly believe that any government with power will eventually try to seize more power.

Try and out-cynical me, will ya? :-)

I entirely agree with the general point about government--the people who argue for more power are not innocent. My point was about the anti-Heller four; I am willing to accept that they simply do not understand what they want to leave the door open for. The probably would dislike the result, but would not connect it with themselves.

They could also know what they are doing, but in this case I choose not to assume malice where folly is an adequate explanation.

7x57

wildhawker
01-26-2009, 1:28 PM
Try and out-cynical me, will ya? :-) ...They could also know what they are doing, but in this case I choose not to assume malice where folly is an adequate explanation.

7x57

Fair enough, but I believe any of our discussions at the Nordyke dinner revolved around the contention that we did not believe in coincidence... Many benevolent yet misguided (or mis-applied) policies have cost countless lives over the course of history.

One cannot assume the outcome of a decision will be reflective of the intentions of its creators. Based on what we know, it would be a mistake to underestimate the level of organization and durability of those diametrically opposed to liberty and this republic.

7x57
01-26-2009, 1:52 PM
Fair enough, but I believe any of our discussions at the Nordyke dinner revolved around the contention that we did not believe in coincidence...

I think we agree, but to be clear I do not believe in coincidence in this case, nor do I necessarily believe in conspiracy. The correlation is from a shared world-view, which tends to teach that (1) truth is no more than a matter of consensus anyway, so there isn't a "right answer." If we win, it's because we created a consensus, not because there is an objective, enduring meaning to the Constitution that is binding on us today. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that there is NO harm being done, because there was never any more guarantee than that. It also teaches that (2) people get better and better over time, and a mysterious improvement in society is the agent of this change, so that there is a lack of fear that the consensus might, after all, turn very bad (as it has over and over again in history--but "we're better than that now"). This social Darwinism is *dangerous*, because it blinds people to the consequences. Believed fully, it makes one incapable of understanding the realism of the founders. They *assumed* that bad people would be in charge and planned for it. The Left assumes that those in charge will be better and better as time goes on.

Shared worldview is sufficient to explain the correlation, and while it is a disastrous and even evil worldview it is the one shared by the guardians of culture. Many who teach it are culpable because they have the information to know better, but many who simply receive it (using the language of tradition, because it is no more and no less) are not really in a position to do otherwise.

In the language of C.S. Lewis, they had the humanity educated out of them before they were able to learn what it means to be human. For the person who buys it fully, I think the harshness is justified.

Philosophy kills.

7x57

nat
01-26-2009, 2:54 PM
From your mouth, Nick, to God's ear.

Cordially,

Natty


Nice screen name.........He is my namesake too.

DDT
01-26-2009, 4:05 PM
Also, if I understand it correctly incorporation means that we will have the same protections for our 2nd amendment civil rights against State infringement that we currently have against Federal infringement.

So, the California AWB would have to be constitutional at the Federal level. Incorporation wouldn't mean that CA can't have more stringent laws than the Feds have, only that CA can't have laws that would be illegal for the Feds to had. This is an important distinction.

Even if ATF doesn't require handgun registration, CA could still have handgun registration assuming it passes constitutional muster in Fed Courts.

The same could be argued for the AWB. If the Federal AWB wasn't illegal there is every possibility that California's AWB would be upheld.

Now, I understand that the Federal AWB was never adjudicated so we don't know how SCOTUS would have ruled in this case. The simple fact that the Fed AWB was never ruled AGAINST is probably enough evidence for California to believe that their ban would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

While I welcome incorporation and I see it as a crucial step forward in the battle for fair gun laws in California please realize that it isn't an instant panacea for all the ails California.

The most obvious places we are likely to see immediate change is not in CCW or AWB etc. but rather in unfair taxes and other business restrictions like zoning. These are places where there is a long history of these exact types of assaults on civil rights and they should quickly fall. So, perhaps folks in LA, Oakland, SF will find that they will again have local gun shops. This is a very good thing.

Just trying to temper the flame of incorporation.

nick
01-26-2009, 5:56 PM
My question wasn't actually about the laws we can fight using incorporation; it was about whether we may finally get an effective tool to fight those who abuse existing laws, whatever they are, and harass where no laws exist to begin with. So my scope of my question is simply whether, in your opinion, we'll be able to go after the specific people abusing the authority granted to them without them hiding behind civil servant immunity, since we'll be talking about a civil right here. I don't think there're many options more effective than that. otherwise, no matter what rights we get or what privileges are granted to us, many or most still won't exercise those out of fear of harassment and abuse of authority by, well, the individuals in position of authority.

So, do you think that 2nd A incorporation in CA means that we'll be able to use the civil rights argument to lift the civil servant immunity when we go after the specific government officials/LEOs who abuse their authority, and if you think so or otherwise, why?

hvengel
01-26-2009, 6:13 PM
The Nordyke panel has two sets of 2nd amendment questions before it. One of these is incorporation and unless they rule in favor of incorporation they will not decide the second question because it will be moot since the plaintiffs will not have standing. The second question is does the 2nd amendment nullify a local (IE. non-federal) law banning gun shows on county property.

This last question is about the scope of the 2nd amendment. But notice how limited the questions scope is? This is how this will go for a while with each new case dealing with a specific set of very limited issues. Each time we get a new ruling it will, if it is in our favor, expand what is covered by the 2nd amendment a little. There will not be a big sweeping ruling that magically nullifies all or most of the anti nonsense. It will happen little by little over a long series of court cases. So tighten your seat belt since this is going to be a long and at times very bumpy ride. It will take perhaps 15 or 20 years for the dust to settle even a little.

Incorporation only makes existing rulings related to the 2nd amendment binding on the states and at this time the existing case law is fairly limited both in number of binding cases and scope. But it also opens up possible civil rights claims for those areas that are already binding precedent. For example, if we had incorporation and some city or the state outlawed guns in the home (SF housing authority for example) or passed a law that made self defense in the home impossible Heller would apply and it would be possible to challenge that law in federal court as a civil rights violation. Assuming our side won the court case the court would likely make the government entity that passed the law or regulation pay for the legal costs of the plaintive. In Heller the only question related to paying these legal costs is how much will be paid out by DC to the Heller lawyers not if DC will be paying. As we get more rulings about what the 2nd amendment means this will expand the number of areas that are open to this type of litigation.

The other possible area of litigation is if some agent of some government entity over steps the bounds of the law. One example might be excessive hassling of someone legally open carrying by arresting them on unrelated charges like disorderly conduct or seizing their gun. This is more along the lines of what you are asking about. But these types of suits are fairly rare and there will have to be along line of court victories by our side before we are in a position to pursue this type of action in more than a few cases. In addition for the individual .gov official to be on the hook for the cost of the suit and additional damages they would have to very clearly overstep the bounds of their authority (IE. do something that is contrary to the policy of the agency they work for or do something that the courts have already ruled is a civil rights violation) and many cases would fall into the gray area where the individual gov. agent would not be personally liable. The tax payer will be on the hook for the legal costs of suing over laws that go beyond what is allowed by the 2nd amendment and most cases of over zealous enforcement of existing laws.

The good news is that California is in deep financial trouble to the point where every penny counts at every level of government. This will likely sharpen their focus if they are getting hit by and loosing law suits where they have to pay out significant settlements. In other words I expect that the states financial situation will make it more likely that they will capitulate (IE. change laws and settle cases) more easily than would be the case otherwise.

DDT
01-26-2009, 6:26 PM
So, do you think that 2nd A incorporation in CA means that we'll be able to use the civil rights argument to lift the civil servant immunity when we go after the specific government officials/LEOs who abuse their authority, and if you think so or otherwise, why?

Unless you are a member of a protected class there is very little hope of finding redress in the form of a Civil Rights lawsuit.

nooner
01-26-2009, 6:30 PM
I think we agree, but to be clear I do not believe in coincidence in this case, nor do I necessarily believe in conspiracy. The correlation is from a shared world-view, which tends to teach that (1) truth is no more than a matter of consensus anyway, so there isn't a "right answer."This is absurd. What school are talking about that teaches 2+2=97259 if everyone agrees it is true? A shared world view? This should be thrown out from any discussion on its face. It is completely absurd.

Words mean things. Irrational people with an irrational philosophy believe in irrational things, hold irrational ideas and do irrational things. Irrational philosophy applied can and does kill people but it can only do so if acted upon by its agents. Philosophy doesn't kill, people kill.

mblat
01-26-2009, 7:21 PM
This is absurd. What school are talking about that teaches 2+2=97259 if everyone agrees it is true? A shared world view? This should be thrown out from any discussion on its face. It is completely absurd.

Words mean things. Irrational people with an irrational philosophy believe in irrational things, hold irrational ideas and do irrational things. Irrational philosophy applied can and does kill people but it can only do so if acted upon by its agents. Philosophy doesn't kill, people kill.

Two parallel lines will either never cross or they will..... depending on the system they are considered...... and both systems are very correct.
And that is in the science as pure and logical as mathematics..... So what to say of such irrational area as gun law.....

Paladin
01-26-2009, 7:30 PM
The Q I have re Heller and incorporation is whether those will give us additional protection against having our 2nd A RKBA limited (e.g., LE seizing guns) during a local/state/national state of emergency or declaration of martial law.

Sure, the NRA pushed thru laws restricting such acts by the fed and many states (incl CA) after Katrina. But, IIRC, there were some loopholes in some of those laws and, quite frankly, I don't trust the gov't, esp executive branches (incl sheriffs and CoPs), during emergencies.

Heller and incorporation might give us an extra layer of protection that legislatures can't or will be very difficult to circumvent.

nick
01-26-2009, 7:46 PM
I don't think any law would help in that situation, we're not that kind of society anymore. What would help is different societal attitude (for example, if you protect yourself against a violation of your rights by a government official with lethal force, should you be prosecuted?) and an established pattern of personal responsibility for civil rights violations by the said government officials, which is what I was driving at with my question. If the city or state pays for its LEOs abusing their power or its officials giving LEOs orders to that tune, then the abuses won't stop no matter what laws you have. If the individuals are punished for their conduct, extra laws become largely a moot point, as no LEO would want to be prosecuted after the fact, and even if some politician gives such an order, I doubt there'd be many LEOs to follow it, and we'd have one more crooked politician in jail afterwards. Unless that happens, well, what happened to the NOPD's Chief? Exactly, nothing.

The Q I have re Heller and incorporation is whether those will give us additional protection against having our 2nd A RKBA limited (e.g., LE seizing guns) during a local/state/national state of emergency or declaration of martial law.

Sure, the NRA pushed thru laws restricting such acts by the fed and many states (incl CA) after Katrina. But, IIRC, there were some loopholes in some of those laws and, quite frankly, I don't trust the gov't, esp executive branches (incl sheriffs and CoPs), during emergencies.

Heller and incorporation might give us an extra layer of protection that legislatures can't or will be very difficult to circumvent.

SwissFluCase
01-26-2009, 8:08 PM
My question wasn't actually about the laws we can fight using incorporation; it was about whether we may finally get an effective tool to fight those who abuse existing laws, whatever they are, and harass where no laws exist to begin with. So my scope of my question is simply whether, in your opinion, we'll be able to go after the specific people abusing the authority granted to them without them hiding behind civil servant immunity, since we'll be talking about a civil right here. I don't think there're many options more effective than that. otherwise, no matter what rights we get or what privileges are granted to us, many or most still won't exercise those out of fear of harassment and abuse of authority by, well, the individuals in position of authority.

So, do you think that 2nd A incorporation in CA means that we'll be able to use the civil rights argument to lift the civil servant immunity when we go after the specific government officials/LEOs who abuse their authority, and if you think so or otherwise, why?

In this line of thinking, I think back to the civil rights movement. That took decades. We have decades in front of us teaching law enforcement our rights. 30 years ago you could CCW without a license. Most cops would let you go if you seemed to be OK. Try that today and see what happens. Likewise, as the citizens become educated about guns, most of the younger cops could respect our rights, while the grizzled old veterans from this day and age who hate gun cycle out.

This is the "soft war" that I have stepped into. We not only need to change the laws, but we need to change attitudes. We need to make sure our gun culture, nay our American culture and heritage, is spread throughout the land.

Think the civil rights movement. The laws didn't make it happen. It was the change in attitude of the citizens of this country. Such that an overtly racist act is easy to sue for now, an act against us will be similarly unacceptable in the future.

Get cracking! ;)

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Aegis
01-26-2009, 8:17 PM
The good news is that California is in deep financial trouble to the point where every penny counts at every level of government. This will likely sharpen their focus if they are getting hit by and loosing law suits where they have to pay out significant settlements. In other words I expect that the states financial situation will make it more likely that they will capitulate (IE. change laws and settle cases) more easily than would be the case otherwise.

This may be a silver lining in this current economic climate. If incorporation is granted, the state will eventually have to either allow CCW or LOC, it cannot continue to deny both. If each county and city are facing hundreds of lawsuits for denying LOC and CCW, they or Sacramento will have no choice but to give in. We have been hearing that this is maybe where Jerry Brown steps in to convince the politicians in Sacramento to pass a shall issue law.

SwissFluCase
01-26-2009, 8:49 PM
This is absurd. What school are talking about that teaches 2+2=97259 if everyone agrees it is true? A shared world view? This should be thrown out from any discussion on its face. It is completely absurd.

Words mean things. Irrational people with an irrational philosophy believe in irrational things, hold irrational ideas and do irrational things.

To me that sounds like a good working defintion of communism.

War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Poverty is wealth.
And on.

I think we all understand 2+2=97259 is an absurd equation, and no amount of concensus can change this fact. The liberal gun hating shared worldview organic hippie lovefest concensus is not about the factual answer. Instead of 4 or 97259, the answer would be about how you *feel* about the numbers. More accurate would be the case where a winning school basketball team wants to forfeit to the losing team out of guilt. The effort to turn our national heroes into villians seems like a good analogy too. Toss out math and science to push sensitivty classes instead.

I certainly do not approve of such a state of affairs, but it seems to pervade our educational institutions, and is a cunning way to command and control.

Irrational philosophy applied can and does kill people but it can only do so if acted upon by its agents. Philosophy doesn't kill, people kill.

Are we immune from irrational thinking (spread by rational people who don't have our best interests in mind)? Would I trust your average couch potato, public school educated corporate drone NOT to rat me out when they see me cleaning my guns in my garage? Do I think society's rejects, given a brown shirt by the state and ordered to wreak havoc on us in exchange for some reward won't actually do so? Philosophy, distilled into propaganda, plus government approval and reward, has proven to be one of the deadliest combinations extant. I offer the democide of the 20th century as my exhibit.

This is what we are up against. Nothing less than Communist philosophy.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

yellowfin
01-26-2009, 10:22 PM
In this line of thinking, I think back to the civil rights movement. That took decades. We have decades in front of us teaching law enforcement our rights. 30 years ago you could CCW without a license. Most cops would let you go if you seemed to be OK. Try that today and see what happens. Likewise, as the citizens become educated about guns, most of the younger cops could respect our rights, while the grizzled old veterans from this day and age who hate gun cycle out.

This is the "soft war" that I have stepped into. We not only need to change the laws, but we need to change attitudes. We need to make sure our gun culture, nay our American culture and heritage, is spread throughout the land.

Think the civil rights movement. The laws didn't make it happen. It was the change in attitude of the citizens of this country. Such that an overtly racist act is easy to sue for now, an act against us will be similarly unacceptable in the future.

Get cracking! ;)

Regards,


SwissFluCaseThat problem is already solved in most of the country. It's CA, urban NY, NJ, MD, HI, and urban IL that need to have the attitudes adjusted and the damage undone. It's not that the gun culture needs to be reintroduced everywhere, it's that the anti gun culture needs to stop being exported where it isn't found and squashed where it is. It's essentially an invasive pest.

nooner
01-26-2009, 11:56 PM
This is what we are up against.
Preaching to the choir dude.

7x57
01-27-2009, 12:54 AM
This is absurd. What school are talking about that teaches 2+2=97259 if everyone agrees it is true?


If you mean that literally, few will attempt to do that directly in mathematics. But if you mean metaphorically, then for clarity I offer an example. It's boring to always take potshots at the "living Constitution" people, so we'll go with a different example which seemed to dominate English departments at one time (I imagine we have a different flavor of brain damage now, I'm dating myself badly):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

for example

"A "deconstruction" of a given text describes the failure of the "appeal to presence" within the text, which, in literary criticism, is understood as the failure of the text to mean what its author intended it to mean."

In other words, the focus of this particular subjectivist school of criticism is simply to show that no text means what it's author intended. Now...what happens when pre-law students take English classes which teach them that texts don't and in fact can't *really* mean what the author intended? Right...they note that the Constitution is a text, and therefore could not mean what the authors intended or ratified. Out goes Original Intent, which would be impossible and absurd. In particular, it doesn't matter that the 2A was intended to protect an individual right to keep and to bear arms--texts don't really reflect authorial intent.

Poof...there goes the Bill of Rights, and for that matter the constitution.


A shared world view? This should be thrown out from any discussion on its face. It is completely absurd.


You're being rude without understanding the point so I should probably be annoyed, but in fact you are correct. It *is* absurd. That is why the subjectivist worldview that gives rise to such things as Deconstruction or a "living Constitution" is dangerous: it systematically teaches people to believe absurd things. It can do so powerfully enough that, for example, people can wring their hands and predict blood flowing in the streets if shall-issue is passed--even though the same prediction failed forty straight times. It *is* absurd to ignore data so obdurately--but it happens.

Unfortunately, absurdity does not prevent it being sincerely believed, if it is embedded in a compelling worldview.


Words mean things.


It is nice that you believe this; unfortunately, others have more trouble with the concept. I will be pleased if you are able to convince certain lawyers that *these* words--"the people," "keep", "bear", and "infringed"--have fixed, discoverable meanings. Unfortunately, up until Heller the precedent of all of the circuits but one (IIRC) was that those words did *not* mean the particular things Madison, or I, would take them to mean. All those circuits made a lot of law based on the idea that words do *not* "mean things." Not specific things, anyway.


Philosophy doesn't kill, people kill.

Is it interesting, reading books without understanding all that figurative language the authors insist on using?

Perhaps concrete examples may help. Lenin had a philosophy; he acted on it, and killed a great many people. The British politicians that banned guns and the right to self defense with any kind of force had another philosophy, and because they acted on that philosophy they have blood on their hands. Examples multiply ad infinitum, especially in the 20th century. The idea is fairly simple and clear. I cannot compel you to understand that particular kind of figure, but it expresses something that more prosaic language does not and so I will persist whether it please you or not.

7x57

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-27-2009, 3:05 AM
Perhaps concrete examples may help. Lenin had a philosophy; he acted on it, and killed a great many people. The British politicians that banned guns and the right to self defense with any kind of force had another philosophy, and because they acted on that philosophy they have blood on its hands. Examples multiply ad infinitum, especially in the 20th century. The idea is fairly simple and clear. I cannot compel you to understand that particular kind of figure, but it expresses something that more prosaic language does not and so I will persist whether it please you or not.

7x57

Truth is fact. You have used the concept of 'truth' in the sense as it applies towards the more philsophical viewpoint you are highlighting in regards to "truth" as being the commonly accepted view. However, I noticed the duality of the structure your post but I don't believe he did. "Accepted truth" would probably have been a better term.

Even if we get incorporation with Nordyke, that does not stop some judge from "reinterpreting" what the 2nd Amendment means.

bulgron
01-27-2009, 9:02 AM
Even if we get incorporation with Nordyke, that does not stop some judge from "reinterpreting" what the 2nd Amendment means.

It is a 100% certainty that any judge who does not subscribe to original intent will do exactly this. The whole interest balancing, living document thing is seductive to members of the judiciary because it gives them power to legislate. One would hope judges would resist the temptation to assume authority that they don't have under the law, but as it turns out judges are people too and so just as susceptible to ego and corruption as the rest of us.

Stare decisis will slow these guys down, but not for very long. Our founders knew that the words in any Bill of Rights could be twisted into providing for the infringement of the exact thing that the founders did not want infringed. This is why the Federalists didn't even want to put a Bill of Rights into the Federal constitution.

At the end of the day, it's up to The People to keep an eye on their civil liberties, and to instruct our various branches of government on what those liberties actually mean when our government forgets itself. This is why we're all here right now; because our government forgot what the Second Amendment means. Even once we're successful in reminding them that they can't infringe upon this right, we don't get to stand down because if we do then within a generation or two we'll be right back to where we are today.

7x57
01-27-2009, 9:22 AM
Truth is fact. You have used the concept of 'truth' in the sense as it applies towards the more philsophical viewpoint you are highlighting in regards to "truth" as being the commonly accepted view. However, I noticed the duality of the structure your post but I don't believe he did. "Accepted truth" would probably have been a better term.


The problem is that if you do not perceive the duality, you essentially cannot understand the public discourse or how we can be in a situation where words are used to mean the opposite of what a classical thinker would use them to mean.

When people intentionally use the same words to mean different things, it makes a mess. We've had this problem spread throughout the culture at least since Bultmann redefined almost every theological term so he could express existential materialism in language that sounded on the surface like classical theology. The result was intentionally deceptive: people did not perceive how radical the theological shift was.

But I say "deceptive" because I believe in classical logic and objective truth. They can sincerely not perceive themselves to be dishonest because they've been taught that, for example, real communication is impossible because language always subverts communication (again ripping on decon, because it's easy). If the world were like that, it wouldn't be ethically dishonest to deceive, because there is nothing else but deception. It rips out a piece of the human conscience without the victim even knowing that they've lost the ability to know what it means to communicate honestly.

Now we have that in the public sphere--lawyers, judges, and politicians can talk about a world with no truth beyond consensual truth, but in language that sounds as though they believe something more. We have a president who claimed to support the Second Amendment. I accept that he meant that honestly to a degree, within the meaning he ascribes to the words. Since the 2A doesn't have a fixed, objective, binding meaning within his world view, he can use the words to mean no more than that he supports the consensus of liberal, progressive scholars. He regards himself as an opinion leader, so of course he can consider himself honest if he asserts as fact the consensus he hopes to create.

Of course, in the world of classical reason this is all dishonest and misleading in the extreme, but the subjectivists insist on using our terms while redefining them. It makes a mess, and it is *designed* to make a mess. People who believe the nature of language subverts communication are not embarassed to do a little extra subverting of their own.


Even if we get incorporation with Nordyke, that does not stop some judge from "reinterpreting" what the 2nd Amendment means.

Certainly not. That is the great danger, and why it's clear the Right People have to choose a legal strategy very carefully.

7x57

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 9:38 AM
Very true about Obama stating that he supports the 2nd Amendment. He can support the second amendment, and still support gun bans by redefining the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

It is kind of like saying I will pay all of the taxes that I owe, and then make sure I owe as little as possible, or, stating that I will cooperate with the investigation to the full extent that the law requires, and then use every procedural roadblock I can to thwart the investigator.

I am not a politician, but I am a corporate animal, so I know all too well about these weasel words.

We need to be especially careful regarding their use of code words in the public discourse, and we need to call the anti's on it when they use them.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 9:44 AM
Preaching to the choir dude.

I know. What personally worries me is that some gun owners view the end goal as making sure they get their collections filled out before what they see as the "inevitable ban", and not actually going after the root causes of the ban itself.

We're just hashing it all out loud, so we all have superior talking points when we engage the enemy in the battle of the words. ;)

That problem is already solved in most of the country. It's CA, urban NY, NJ, MD, HI, and urban IL that need to have the attitudes adjusted and the damage undone. It's not that the gun culture needs to be reintroduced everywhere, it's that the anti gun culture needs to stop being exported where it isn't found and squashed where it is. It's essentially an invasive pest.

We so need a catchy name for this invasive pest it hurts.

How about "Culture of Victimhood?" OK, that kind of stinks, but a good name would help us call the spade a spade. I'll start thinking...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
01-27-2009, 10:08 AM
Some of the founders would have called it a culture of slavery. For example:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

The brutal truth is that the founders were basically Real Men. They sound like eggheads, and they (most of the ones that led and wrote what we read) were in fact rich gentlemen with a classical education--but they were also successful revolutionaries who beat the British army. They had the moral right to insist on "liberty or death" because, in fact, they had proven their willingness to die for it. Most of us have never had to make the choice, and so we don't have the same moral standing to demand hard choices. They are there nonetheless.

That may be one rhetorical avenue to pursue. They'd have called us rank cowards, licking the hand that promises food. Maybe we should do the same and affirm what classical culture affirmed: that a citizen is expected to act like a man and not a slave. Denial of the Right of Self defense is not simply illegal, not simply bad policy, but amounts to ethical castration. It *causes* a slave's mentality. It prevents a boy from growing up to be a man.

I'm not all that comfortable insisting on this because I'm basically an egghead myself, but I know what the words mean and there isn't any real room for dispute.

So instead of telling American men that they should support RKBA because it's good policy, or because it's in the constitution, maybe we should tell them to support it so they can cease being sissies and put on some pants. :-)

7x57

bulgron
01-27-2009, 1:02 PM
So instead of telling American men that they should support RKBA because it's good policy, or because it's in the constitution, maybe we should tell them to support it so they can cease being sissies and put on some pants. :-)

7x57

Arnold's "girly men" rhetoric in the early days of his administration was severely mocked by the left. Therefore, I think trying to promote RKBA so as to avoid sissification would only backfire on us.

I know, I know, I'm responding to your observation, which is no doubt meant to be humorous, with a serious response. But your suggestion is close enough to what the real message should be that it warrants a serious reply.

To the founders, free men bore arms for defense of themselves, their families and their country. Slaves did not because they could not. This was actually one of the core definitions of the difference between a free man and a slave. It was more than an academic definition on their part, since the country they created codified slavery into the very DNA of the nation.

In other words, in all seriousness, people should support the RKBA because doing so means they are not slaves.

Just sayin'....

7x57
01-27-2009, 1:16 PM
Arnold's "girly men" rhetoric in the early days of his administration was severely mocked by the left. Therefore, I think trying to promote RKBA so as to avoid sissification would only backfire on us.

I know, I know, I'm responding to your observation, which is no doubt meant to be humorous, with a serious response. But your suggestion is close enough to what the real message should be that it warrants a serious reply.


In fact I wasn't kidding, and appreciate a serious response. But I think the backfire you describe is a problem of the wrong audience. You don't tell the *real* girly-men that they are girly-men, they'll only pull hair and hit you with their purse. :-) The place where I think there may be some traction is men who are, or are willing to be, men. The guy who played football in high school but has never given any thought to self-defense; he probably already feels the sissification pressure and has some ability to understand the point.


This was actually one of the core definitions of the difference between a free man and a slave.


And some of the bad law we are saddled with was justified *precisely* on that logic, so the point is important.


In other words, in all seriousness, people should support the RKBA because doing so means they are not slaves.


I entirely agree, but it's a bit of a problem making the point to the person who needs to understand it. But that is precisely why I say we need to not be shy about saying that gun control is inherently racist and discriminatory, and why we need to be *very* sure we are supporting RKBA for, for example, young black men.

It would be nice if it could be used as an avenue to teaching the rest of citizenship. I have more than once thought about starting a youth shooting club that does that unapologetically, instead of just talking about sport. It would turn off a lot of people, but it would be nice if there was one group that told the whole truth. It actually works quite well, because once you've taught them to value gun ownership (even though as minors they do not have any RKBA), you then go on to insist that they are going to have to know the law and obey it so that they may continue to shoot with the club; that means not just firearms laws as they apply to minors but also to keeping a clean record and the rest. You end up teaching living within the law even if the law is stupid, and working to change the law rather than ignoring it.

7x57