Quantcast

Why don't we demand that states with 10 round magazine limits apply them to police too?

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by franktheitaliantank, Oct 28, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,954
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    But even then the vision doesn't directly translate to reality as envisioned. How a "fantasy" gets incorporated into the fabric of society is necessarily affected by the reality of how people are: what they believe, and are willing to believe; how they think, and have the capacity to think; what they want, and how far they are willing to modify what they want; what they fear, and what fears they are willing to abandon.

    Every vision of a brave, new world is changed by the implementation of the vision (Schrödinger's cat). The Soviet Union was not by any means the workers' paradise envisioned in the Marxist-Leninist fantasy. It could not possibly have been, because the realization of the fantasy was necessarily affected by the fundamental natures of humans.
     
  2. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Oh absolutely! It isn't like those fantasizing about a great new world get exactly what they wanted. They get whatever mangled and adulterated version manages to squeeze through the molding fingers of the society they're working in, and if they manage to obtain power through the enactment of their dreams, by the changes in the dream that evolve through it's enacting and whatever temptations that power brings to deviate from its most lofty goals.
     
  3. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,216
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Except for the fact that the "anyone" who said the law was constitutional was SCOTUS. It is SCOTUS' province to declare, fully and finally, what is and is not unconstitutional. I forget who said it (maybe a Justice?), but SCOTUS "isn't final because it's infallible; it's infallible because it's final."
    I don't want to get either: (a) too far afield in this thread; or (b) too "inside baseball," as Frank Ettin likes to say. However, their legal protection (qualified immunity) and indemnification are technically separate issues, and adherence to departmental policy is only one part of the equation.
     
    hdwhit likes this.
  4. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Thanks! I don't know what possible value this thread's going to have beyond explaining things in more detail than most people care to hear. So, if you care to fill in the blanks there, I'd love to hear the explanation.

    Sure would go a long way to answer the griping we see so often about how the police have a license to kill and immunity from prosecution for their actions.
     
  5. aarondhgraham

    aarondhgraham Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,991
    Location:
    Stillwater, Oklahoma
    How about this?

    Why don't we "demand" that states do away with the ten-round restriction,,,
    It would have about as much chance as "demanding" police have the same restriction.

    Aarond

    .
     
  6. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,954
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Remember also that effective change will require (1) sufficient political power behind the change to convince legislators that there would be severe, undesirable political consequence to not making the change; and/or (2) convince a court to require the change.
     
  7. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Location:
    Salem, AR
    Oh yeah, that pesky "We the People" thing again.
    • Go out and talk to your neighbors.
    • Get everyone organized.
    • Find a suitable candidate to support.
    • Donate to the candidate instead of buying a new gun.
    • Volunteer to work on the campaign rather than going to the range.
    • Help turn out the vote for the primaries and general election instead of reloading..
    Boy, this all sounds like hard work.
     
  8. JeffG

    JeffG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,610
    Location:
    NE Wisconsin
    I'm still stuck on the concept, "Shall not be infringed." Design restrictions, mag capacity restrictions, etc, are infringement. Period.
     
    stoky likes this.
  9. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Oh! Is that how it works?

    Hmm...how's that working out for ya?

    You feel that since you see it that way, we're all good then?




    These comments boggle my mind. As if these pithy saying make a hill of beans difference to anybody.
     
    JeffG likes this.
  10. JeffG

    JeffG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,610
    Location:
    NE Wisconsin
    It wasn't meant as "snark". It's obviously the Constitutional law of the land. Why are we settling for a diluted version, as citizens? Example: Why can't we keep foreign nationals out of our country that want to instigate and practice terrorism?
     
  11. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,216
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Thus far, though, SCOTUS has declined to adopt that position, and they have the final say as to what's constitutional and what's not.
     
    JeffG likes this.
  12. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    6,880
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Ah, renown counselor, you misunderstood me, my intent was to reference OP's inability to note the beam occuling his vision despite your best intents (and attempts) to the contrary.

    With the added fillip of inflation spoiling a perfectly good analogy. Sigh.
     
  13. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,954
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    My apologies. I did indeed misunderstand you. And I was surprised by your comment and thought it out of character. I'm glad the problem was my [mis]understanding.
     
  14. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    And what that Constitutional law of the land means -- how and to what extent it is applied and practiced -- is ultimately up to what the Justices say. As noted before, their decisions aren't final because they're right. They're right because they're final (sort of). What the Constitution MEANS is whatever they say it means, because they are the ones given the power to say what it means, period.

    (Until society moves far enough to ripple up the changes that put justices of a different view in power and they deign to revisit and revise the issue.)

    A) Because this is the view that the citizens WANT. (The will of the citizens being ultimately being expressed by whom is elected to what public offices and who those electees appoint as Judges -- a process that takes years or decades to bear fruit.)
    B) Because those tasked with deciding what "version" of a Constitutional interpretation we're to live under say so.

    Well, that's a very different and much broader question that doesn't have direct relevance to the 2nd Amendment. But the answer there would be a combination of differences in opinion about who to keep out and with what authority and by what means to do so, coupled with the sheer practically insurmountable problems figuring out who is a threat and who isn't, and the likewise practically unrealizeable dream of having actual control about 20,000 miles of coastline and border and about 330 ports of entry into the US.

    Especially when you consider that we don't have any concrete idea of how many people enter (and/or leave) the US each year, but it's more than one HUNDRED million.
     
    hdwhit likes this.
  15. stoky

    stoky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    Wyomin!
    It was naive of the founding fathers, to expect a few ideas drafted on hemp, about limiting the avarice of overlords, to constrain power mongers and expect future generations to have the cajones to exercise it's enforcement proviso.
    ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capitolhillblue.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2F052212constitution.jpg
    It needed some interpretin.
    ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fevatv.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2FFevaTV-JohnnieCochrane.jpg
     
    franktheitaliantank likes this.
  16. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    That's one way of looking at it, but I actually can't agree. Re-read what Frank summarized about the process by which the founding fathers actually put those "few ideas" down in our Constitution:

    Why say that? Well...
    So, they were naive and couldn't foresee that there would be factions and power struggles and reinterpretations and folks who wanted it to work the way they preferred, and/or to their own benefit?
    As said, the ink was hardly dry on the document before the Court was having to sort out what the words meant and who was going to gain advantage by which reading of them.
     
  17. stoky

    stoky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    Wyomin!
    oh well.............
    As soon as we win a couple of lil domestic wars, Poverty, Drugs (and maybe some I don't recall), the po-po will prolly go back to six shot.38 S&Ws.

    ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpolihop.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F04%2Fboston-police.jpg
     
  18. ClickClickD'oh

    ClickClickD'oh Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,549
    Location:
    Lewisville, Tx
    Let me ask you, do you think there has ever been a significant period of time in history when which ever group was tasked with keeping public order wasn't at least as well armed, if not almost always better armed, then the people than the general public? When the Cohortes Urbanae patrolled the streets of Rome, do you think they were less well armed than the average Roman Citizen? Do you think Shire Reeves were equipped as the mud farmers that lived on the shires they oversaw? Do you think that common folk were walking around with espantoons in the early 1800s?

    Let me laugh harder.
     
  19. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ok, so that's a broad gripe, but not really anything helpful to understanding how the Constitution works, or why "we" (the people?) don't "demand" something from our government.
     
  20. Berger.Fan222

    Berger.Fan222 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    TX
    Again, the misconception of what federalism is and is not. The governments of other states is not "our" government. It is the government of the residents of those other states. Each US citizen should only be a registered voter in one state. That is "their state" - the only state about which they can say "our government."

    The other 49 state governments are not theirs to say anything about, except in the cases where the state government itself is in violation of federal law, including the Constitution. But the game of pretending everything we don't like is "unconstitutional" is old, and the argument is worn thin.

    The government of the other 49 states is not your business.
     
    jdc1244 likes this.
  21. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Hmmm...ok, well, that's interesting. But of course we're also citizens of the USA, meaning the Federal government is "our" government.

    And something you really should consider when you say "the government of the other 49 states is not your business" is that we're also all citizens within various federal court districts, so decisions that have come up through a neighboring state and get decided in our district's high courts affect us too.

    Not so simple as to say what happens in the next state isn't our business.



    Further, there's the concept of giving aid to friends and allies "behind enemy lines," so to speak. Our power to change state laws in a state we don't live in is not very great, but there's no moral high ground to be held in refusing to do whatever is possible to fund, assist, instruct, aid, encourage, etc. those on our side who occupy a minority position wherever they are.
     
    danez71 likes this.
  22. stoky

    stoky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    Wyomin!
    It is it helpful to understanding why the Constitution doesn't work, when "the people" demand something (that the LSM convinces us) can't be accomplished with out compromising the Bill of Rights?
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  23. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    I guess not. It's just a picture of some armed men and a statement with sarcastic overtones linking in an ephemeral way the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the move away from revolvers among law enforcement.

    It seems like a sentimental and nebulous lament about "the state of the world" without a direct point or a clear call to action.

    It really doesn't explain why the Constitution doesn't work. And it doesn't answer the questions raised by the OP.
     
  24. Berger.Fan222

    Berger.Fan222 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    TX
    Fair enough, but the central question under discussion is "Why don't we demand that states ...?"

    Bottom line is that we are only in authority to demand things in the state where we vote. We can encourage and support the citizens in other states in demanding things we believe to be to their benefit in protecting and securing their rights. But there is an important distinction between supporting citizens of other states (or nations, for that matter) in demanding things of their governments and demanding things of their governments.

    The Constitutional requirement that each state have a republican government means that we only exert authority as voters and citizens in a single state.
     
  25. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ok, that seems quite clear. Is there confusion about that or some kind of problem we face because of it, in the gun rights fight? I mean, I don't know anyone who has ever admitted to going to another state and trying to vote in their elections or referendums on gun issues. (Or any other issues, actually.)

    I've known a few people who went places to help in marches or whatever, but that's fine. No "authority" exerted in that act, and goes directly to freedom of expression.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice