2A Debate with Alan Dershowitz

[AlexanderA]

Alan Dershowitz is well past his "sell by" date. In fact, in recent years he has made such a break from his past that we can rightly wonder if he has had some sort of mental breakdown. At any rate, few people --especially in the legal profession -- take him seriously any more.

 

[Monac]

These are not weapons carried by the soldier. One could own/use a "battleship" only when he was granted a letter of marque and reprisal.
I would venture to guess crew served weapons would not be considered weapons under the "keep and bear arms" cause as it would be very difficult, if not impossible for the individual to carry one. JMHO, of course.

army_eod, the person I quoted, said he did not feel that his ability to own "anything" should be restricted. That was his exact word, and that is what I was asking about. "Weapons carried by a soldier" has nothing to do with what he said or what I asked. In fact, he specifically mentioned computers, cars, and TV's, so he was obviously not talking just about weapons.

BTW, if you think I am kidding about the plutonium, read up on "the radioactive Boy Scout", a guy named David Hahn.

 

[Tommygunn]

Oh, boy, this talking point. Here is what I think of the whole "We're not a democracy! We're a Republic!" thing:


You go argue with Beau. He's smarter than I am.

Now, would you like to say something relevant and meaningful?

A lot of "distinction without a difference" in his opening, IMHO. Franklin himself, much better schooled than most, called us a republic. Up until the early 20th century most learned Americans were repulsed at the idea of atleast pure democracy.
In a pure democracy the people would have to vote on every matter concerning government action or policy. Of course that would be impossible in the America of the Founders' day, or even today. So we elect representatives, which is where our "democracy" comes in.
But we still have a Constitution and Bill of Rights to enumerate how the govt acts and protects the unalienable rights of citizens from .... "the mob." Atleast in theory, if not so much in fact these days .....

I'm sorry, Beau tells me nothing I do not already know.

I will say one thing; the later part of his video was spot on on many points. It's just "I heard it all in junior high civics class ..... "

 

[Tommygunn]

This statement mixes apples and oranges. A "republic" describes an institutional framework (i.e., something that is not a monarchy). "Democracy" is a governing philosophy, that government is by the consent of the governed. These are independent variables. You can have dictatorial republics, just as you can have democratic monarchies. The U.S. is a democracy expressed in a republican form.

There is plenty of historical evidence that the Founders believed in democracy. Certainly, by the time we get to Jackson and Lincoln, politicians were talking about democracy all the time. Even a foreign observer, Alexis de Tocqueville, entitled his book "Democracy in America."

Today, the rubric "this is a republic, not a democracy" is a marker for the Far Right. By using it, you label yourself.

Well, then so did Benjamin Franklin.
And I never said or believed that you couldn't have dictatorial republic. A lot of that is semantic. Communist Countries love things like "the people's republic" or "people's liberation army" or some semantic pablum that ostensibly presents it as friendly or defending the common people when in reality they are an oppressive hell.

 

[Monac]

A lot of "distinction without a difference" in his opening, IMHO. Franklin himself, much better schooled than most, called us a republic. Up until the early 20th century most learned Americans were repulsed at the idea of at least pure democracy.
I'm sorry, Beau tells me nothing I do not already know.

I will say one thing; the later part of his video was spot on on many points. It's just "I heard it all in junior high civics class ..... "

Hey, I too like to brush off things I don't agree with and claim they say nothing worth hearing! We've got something in common. That's nice, isn't it?

BTW, what people CALL us is not the issue. What we ARE is. Beau points are what we are, which is a place where the majority rules via elected representatives. That is what I mean when I call us a democracy, If you want to call it a republic, fine. We mean the same thing, in that case.

So you are making a distinction without a difference in the current discussion. I realize it this distinction is a big deal if you teaching a junior high civics class, but it is irrelevant here. Specifically, to the point I was actually making. This talking point is generally always a diversion so that that people who make it can ignore the actual point. Which is often what people do when they do not wish to address the actual argument. Is that the case here?

 

[Tommygunn]

Add "slaves" to that list, and drop cars, computers, and TV's, and you are saying exactly the same thing the secessionists said in 1861. That is a comparison I keep trying to point out to pro-gun people as a way to get everything you want taken away, but they don't want to see it.

Oh, and is mustard gas included under "anything"? How about plutonium? Because I really hope not, but you didn't say.

Mustard gas is a "weapon of mass destruction" and probably not covered by the 2A.
plutonium is merely a radioactive element by itself and aside from being horribly toxic to people exposed to it is not a weapon. Of couse you mean a nuclear bomb, which is ordnance, not carried by a soldier and uh ... no I don't think my neighbor should have one. My father had nuclear top secret clearance and knew enough about nukes to know you do not just stick one on a shelf like a box of .45 Colt rounds. Many require a environment and a bunch of regular servicing. By experts.

 

[Tommygunn]

Hey, I too like to brush off things I don't agree with and claim they say nothing worth hearing! We've got something in common. That's nice, isn't it?

BTW, what people CALL us is not the issue. What we ARE is. Beau points are what we are, which is a place where the majority rules via elected representatives. That is what I mean when I call us a democracy, If you want to call it a republic, fine. We mean the same thing, in that case.

So you are making a distinction without a difference in the current discussion. I realize it this distinction is a big deal if you teaching a junior high civics class, but it is irrelevant here. Specifically, to the point I was actually making. This talking point is generally always a diversion so that that people who make it can ignore the actual point. Which is often what people do when they do not wish to address the actual argument. Is that the case here?

Ok, fine. I'm not entirely sure what you're wound up about, because there is nothing in the above I disagree with.

 

[Tommygunn]

Oh, P. S.; I have a feeling this thread is gonna get shut down ...... soon ....

 

[entropy]

the antithesis of the Hobbesian absolute state guaranteed by Hessians loyal to the state.

Hessians were loyal to the Duchy of Hesse. The Duke sold their services as mercenaries to the British.

PS - I grew up in Wisconsin. It had a law against concealed carry from the 1850's until about the 1990's

It also had no proscription against open carry since May 29th, 1848, and except for those places in line with Federal carry regs, Courthouses, polling places, schools, etc. still doesn't.

Hey, someone had to do the post that got it shut down.....

 

[Monac]

Mustard gas is a "weapon of mass destruction" and probably not covered by the 2A.
plutonium is merely a radioactive element by itself and aside from being horribly toxic to people exposed to it is not a weapon. Of couse you mean a nuclear bomb, which is ordnance, not carried by a soldier and uh ... no I don't think my neighbor should have one. My father had nuclear top secret clearance and knew enough about nukes to know you do not just stick one on a shelf like a box of .45 Colt rounds. Many require a environment and a bunch of regular servicing. By experts.

As I have noted elsewhere, eod was NOT talking about weapons. He specifically mentioned computers, cars, and TVs as examples of "anything". Those things are not weapons either. So your post is irrelevant.

BTW, as I also noted above, you might read up on the "atomic Boy Scout", David Hahn, before dismissing my question as frivolous. Sometimes facts, rather than assumptions, really enhance a discussion, don't you think?

 

[Monac]

Ok, fine. I'm not entirely sure what you're wound up about, because there is nothing in the above I disagree with.

I like the casual way you call me "wound up". I am going to have to learn how to drop that into discussions. Making the other person seem all hot and bothered helps exude an air of effortless superiority, doesn't it? Just like all those "learned Americans" who didn't want to live in anything as vulgar as a democracy, because they were learned and all.

 

[Tommygunn]

I like the casual way you call me "wound up". I am going to have to learn how to drop that into discussions. Making the other person seem all hot and bothered helps exude an air of effortless superiority, doesn't it? Just like all those "learned Americans" who didn't want to live in anything as vulgar as a democracy, because they were learned and all.

Thanks for demonstrating my point .... again.

 

[AlexanderA]

These are not weapons carried by the soldier. One could own/use a "battleship" only when he was granted a letter of marque and reprisal.
I would venture to guess crew served weapons would not be considered weapons under the "keep and bear arms" cause as it would be very difficult, if not impossible for the individual to carry one. JMHO, of course.

In the 18th and early 19th centuries, merchant ships routinely carried cannons for defensive purposes (to ward off pirates, etc.). Letters of marque and reprisal were only needed for offensive use of those cannon, to attack enemy merchant ships and take them as prizes. Without those letters, the attackers would be considered pirates themselves.

I don't see any limit in the 2nd Amendment that the arms in question have to be portable. Since when do we draw the line at crew-served weapons? My M2HB is just as protected under the 2nd as my M16.

 

[wcwhitey]

A credentialed man, entitled to his educated opinion. If he was on the Supreme Court I would worry. Podcasts don’t get to rule on the the Constitution. Entertaining but meaningless.