THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
So, to be clear, parliament couldn't ban guns until it did. Is that about right?

Yes.

In the words of Strother Martin, "what we have here is a failure to communicate."

When you say "parliament could not ban guns," what you're saying is that it did not give itself the legal authority to do so. When parados says "parliament could ban guns," what he's saying is that it had the capability to do so. Both of you are correct, but I would venture to say that your use of "could" in this context is highly idiosyncratic, and it is that idiosyncratic usage that has led to much of the confusion here.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Parados and I do have a different position.

My position is that the 1920 Firearms Act contradicted the gun right contained in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and thus repealed the right.

His position is that there is no contradiction between the two, and therefore the 1689 right was not repealed (and continues in England to this day).

I'm not sure how it is relevant to anything, but I am confident that I am correct.

Disclaimer: I summarized Parados' position in good faith, but the possibility always exists that I made a mistake and got something wrong about his position.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

In any cult your allowed to think but it has to be in unison.
Candlelight8

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

That is one valid interpretation. As I said, I have in the past been a proponent of that interpretation. (In truth it is the interpretation that most adheres to the intention of the right.)

As I said though, currently I favor a different interpretation where militiamen have the right to keep all sorts of military weaponry (Stinger missiles, etc) at home, and non-militiamen have the right to have guns that are suitable for self defense.

This thread has prompted me to do a lot of thinking about the English Bill of Rights, and I think I'll switch back to favoring the interpretation of the Second Amendment where the general populace has the right to whatever is the standard infantry weapon of the day.

It'd be nice to have Stinger missiles in the homes of militiamen across America, but as I said this is the more accurate interpretation.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

As far as the issues of this election, I wonder how high the 2nd amendment concerns rank among all these ther issues. I think you promised that Trump would ascend to the presidency based on the deep anger felt among the probable voters.
Isnt that sorta what you were saying?

Trump workin out for you with that thesis in mind?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I looked over some lit of issues from various sources and only one even mentioned gun control (many others were more heavily weighing VIOLENCE in the streets). The one site that had gun control as an important issue was done by some group associated with sportsmen. (Even thenm, it was number 1 of a list of 15). 5 Other lists (from 7 to 10 issues each), didnt even list guns (or the second amwendment) as a big issue that would bust the election.

.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

As far as the issues of this election, I wonder how high the 2nd amendment concerns rank among all these ther issues. I think you promised that Trump would ascend to the presidency based on the deep anger felt among the probable voters.
Isnt that sorta what you were saying?

Anger over the Second Amendment was not the basis of my prediction.

What I said was that Mr. Obama wasted every last bit of his second term political capital throwing a tantrum at the NRA. This meant that he would be unable to advance any legislation in his second term.

That means that come election day it will have been a long six years since he successfully advanced a legislative agenda.

That legislative wasteland means the voters will be eager to switch which party controls the White House, which will virtually guarantee a Republican victory.

When it became clear that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee I made a second prediction that with his populist rhetoric and promise of radical change, if he is elected his pro-working-class policies will lead to an extended period of Republican political dominance.

farmerman wrote:

Trump workin out for you with that thesis in mind?

My prediction that Mr. Obama's second term would be a legislative wasteland has turned out exactly correct.

My prediction that there would be a very strong wind for change this election has turned out exactly correct.

Whether that strong wind for change is enough to sweep Mr. Trump into the White House as I predicted remains to be seen. He does seem to have some flaws that are countering the voters' strong desire for change. We'll find out on election night.

If Hillary wins, my prediction of the result of a Trump presidency will never be tested.

If Trump wins, it'll be another 20 years before we know if I was right on my second prediction.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gallup-only-2-americans-name-gunsgun-control-among-nations-most-important

Quote:

Gallup: Only 2% Say 'Guns/Gun Control' Among Nation's Most Important Problems

By Susan Jones | January 4, 2016 | 5:53 AM EST

Quote:

In fact, guns/gun control ranked 19th out of 23 top problems facing the country last year.

___

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/05/gun-control-reform-maine-hillary-clinton-nra

Quote:

As Hillary Clinton makes history while openly campaigning for gun law reform, the NRA faces possible defeat in a Maine referendum.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

predicting yesterdays fooball game is within the skillset of us all. You are making slight changes in your "prediction set" from laste 2015, here you almost guaranteed that the GOP candidate would cruise into the White House.

Im not going to go hunting down your posts, but Im sure others have read the same boasts (Primarily due to gun control issues).

BTW, most presidents second terms lack the big issue accomplishments of legislative programs, Obama's was also seen from the rear view mirror . Yet his use of executive authority because his Congress is getting paid to do nothing, wolved much of that.
The only concern is whether his EA decrees will live past few months of Hillary's first term.

So what is it youre actually predicting about the presidential race now?? Is the GOP no longer a gurnteed sho-in for the White House?? So its "Shut up and deal from you now eh?"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

predicting yesterdays fooball game is within the skillset of us all. You are making slight changes in your "prediction set" from laste 2015, here you almost guaranteed that the GOP candidate would cruise into the White House.

My prediction was made in mid-2013.

While I'm sure I did not word my prediction exactly the same each time I typed it, the variance in wording did not change the prediction, which is the same today as it was in 2013.

farmerman wrote:

BTW, most presidents second terms lack the big issue accomplishments of legislative programs,

Election to a second term does not generate as much political capital as election to a first term, but there is still a period at the beginning of the term when a president can push a legislative agenda with a good chance of success.

Getting a second term legislative agenda passed makes a very big difference in how successful the second term ultimately is.

farmerman wrote:

Obama's was also seen from the rear view mirror .

Mid-2013 was towards the beginning of his second term.

farmerman wrote:

So what is it youre actually predicting about the presidential race now??

My predictions are unchanged. The 2013 gun control debacle used up all of his second term political capital. This left his second term a legislative wasteland and made the 2016 voters extremely eager for change, which should push the Republican candidate into the White House.

I confess to not even considering Trump until the moment when it suddenly became overwhelmingly clear that he was definitely going to become the Republican nominee. But once I did consider him, I quickly made a second prediction, which is that once in office, Mr. Trump's anti-trade policies would prove so popular with the working class that the Democrats would be doomed. Picture how popular Hugo Chavez was in Venezuela. If he is elected, I predict that Mr. Trump will become an American Hugo Chavez. As such, I predict that the Republicans will hold the White House for 20 years minimum, and that the Democrats will only return to the White House when they give up on liberalism and nominate a Trump-lite for president.

Obviously my second prediction will only be able to be tested if Mr. Trump manages to get elected.

farmerman wrote:

Is the GOP no longer a gurnteed sho-in for the White House??

Well, I'm not infallible. It has always been possible for me to be wrong.

Sometimes people wrongly accuse me of thinking that I'm infallible. I can never understand where people get such strange ideas.

My prediction that "the legislative wasteland would result in a very strong momentum for change" is completely on target, but a person would have to be blind to not see that Mr. Trump has some very serious flaws that are hampering his candidacy.

farmerman wrote:

So its "Shut up and deal from you now eh?"

I'm not sure that I understand what that means. Obviously a card-playing metaphor of some kind.

I certainly agree that we'll have to wait until election day to see if Mr. Trump actually wins or not.

I've no objection to discussing my prediction in the meantime though.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

My prediction that Mr. Obama's second term would be a legislative wasteland has turned out exactly correct

His use of executive authority mostly counters your self-congratulations about your powers of prediction. Allso, your belief in a "deep set anger over his trampling over the 2nd amendment" doesnt seem to register very high on the concern-o-meter.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

His use of executive authority mostly counters your self-congratulations about your powers of prediction.

How so? It didn't prevent me from being right about him not getting any legislation passed. It didn't prevent me from being right about the voters' very strong mood for change. If Trump loses, it will be because of Trump's own flaws, not because of Obama's executive orders.

I don't have powers of prediction. It is clear that I was able to notice something here that no one else perceived. But that does not mean that I'm able to accurately envision the future all the time. How often is a president likely to sabotage their presidency by wasting their entire stock of political capital in a pointless attack against the indomitable might of the NRA?

farmerman wrote:

Allso, your belief in a "deep set anger over his trampling over the 2nd amendment" doesnt seem to register very high on the concern-o-meter.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If you mean me, the Second Amendment is very likely to govern my vote.

The only thing that would take precedence over the Second Amendment for me would be if Hillary made it clear to me that she was diplomatically responsible for Judge Hellmann being placed in charge of Amanda Knox's appeal back in 2011.

If I knew that Hillary was responsible for that, I'd gladly vote for her. Otherwise though, my vote is almost certainly going to be based on candidate adherence to the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That is incorrect. When two laws conflict with each other, the newer law takes precedence over the older law.

When a law conflicts with a right, it doesn't overturn the right.

Quote:

Replacing an old law with something that is entirely contrary to the old law is hardly enforcing that old law.

When the right (not a law) says it allows whatever is allowed under the law then changing the law doesn't change the right. You can argue the right is meaningless but you can't argue the right changed.

Quote:

True. But a bit far afield since I haven't brought my opinion into this.

When you confuse the EBR and rights granted with laws then you are bringing your ill informed opinion into this. Your lack of understanding of the English language is your opinion. It certainly isn't factual about what words mean.

Quote:

That is incorrect. The British government did not have the power to prevent individuals from having guns until 1920.

They always had that power. Because they might not have exercised that power doesn't mean they didn't have it. Once again, you introduce your ill informed opinion as fact.

Quote:

No. I have repeatedly stated that they were able to bar narrow categories of guns.

What wasn't allowed was to tell an individual that they were not permitted to have any gun at all.

There are 2 problems with your argument.

1. If they can bar some categories then why can't they bar other categories? Your logic is they can do something until you disagree with what they did.

2. Under current British law individuals CAN have guns. They just have regulations to follow that you don't like. Your statement is factually incorrect when you claim they are not permitted to have any gun at all.

Quote:

I've always found that strict adherence to the truth is a winning strategy.

It's too bad you haven't decided to follow that adage.

Let me ask you flat out - Is it possible for someone in England to own a gun? yes or no? Your answer will tell us how strictly you are adhering to the truth.

1 Reply

An American legal scholar, St. George Tucker, wrote Blackstone's Commentaries and published it in 1803. It referred to Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which was published in three volumes in 1765 and 1766. Here is his résumé of Blakstone on the right to bear arms:

Tucker wrote:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty. [Editorial note: I understand that this last sentence is considered by some historians to be an exaggeration.

This refers to Blackstone's comment " . . . that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."

(Spellings are as they appear in the orginal works.)

Clearly Parliament could limit the right to keep and bear arms, and did so through the game and forest laws.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Tucker wrote:

the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty. [Editorial note: I understand that this last sentence is considered by some historians to be an exaggeration.

It appears that this Tucker person was confused. The words "suitable to their condition and degree" were not interpreted to authorize bans on guns.

Setanta wrote:

Clearly Parliament could limit the right to keep and bear arms, and did so through the game and forest laws.

They did so before the English Bill of Rights. Then the people got upset and deposed the king, and the English BOR was passed.

After the English Bill of Rights, game laws were no longer used to prevent ordinary people from having whatever was the standard infantry gun of the day, or to prevent them from carrying said weapons for defense when away from home.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

When a law conflicts with a right, it doesn't overturn the right.

You are confusing England with America. England does not have a Constitution that makes rights superior to laws. In England, the will of the majority as expressed by the vote of Parliament had absolute power.

When Parliament passed a law in England, that law was the final word on a matter. Anything from the past that that law contradicted was overturned.

This changed when England subjected themselves to the European Court of Human Rights, but that is outside the scope of a gun rights discussion.

parados wrote:

When the right (not a law) says it allows whatever is allowed under the law then changing the law doesn't change the right. You can argue the right is meaningless but you can't argue the right changed.

When they passed a law that contradicted the right, as they did in 1920, that overturned the right.

parados wrote:

When you confuse the EBR and rights granted with laws then you are bringing your ill informed opinion into this. Your lack of understanding of the English language is your opinion. It certainly isn't factual about what words mean.

I am not confused. Nor is my opinion ill informed. My post pointing out what the words meant is factually accurate.

parados wrote:

They always had that power. Because they might not have exercised that power doesn't mean they didn't have it.

The British government did not have the power to prevent an individual from having any gun until after 1920, which is when the law was changed to give them this power.

parados wrote:

Once again, you introduce your ill informed opinion as fact.

My opinion is very highly informed.

parados wrote:

There are 2 problems with your argument.
1. If they can bar some categories then why can't they bar other categories?

There is a huge difference between "banning a narrow category" and "banning everything".

Also, the entire point of the right was ensuring that people could have standard infantry weapons. Banning some other category of weapon doesn't defeat the main intent. Banning the very type of weapon that the right was intended to protect undermines everything that the right was trying to achieve.

parados wrote:

Your logic is they can do something until you disagree with what they did.

That is incorrect. That is not my logic.

parados wrote:

2. Under current British law individuals CAN have guns. They just have regulations to follow that you don't like.

That is incorrect. Under current British law an individual can be prevented from having a gun, even if they agree to follow regulations.

parados wrote:

Your statement is factually incorrect when you claim they are not permitted to have any gun at all.

My statement that the British government has the power to prevent an individual from having guns is factually correct.

parados wrote:

It's too bad you haven't decided to follow that adage.

I always follow that adage.

parados wrote:

Let me ask you flat out - Is it possible for someone in England to own a gun? yes or no?

It is up to the British government. They do allow some individuals to have guns. But they have the power to prevent an individual from having guns if they so choose.

parados wrote:

Your answer will tell us how strictly you are adhering to the truth.

Everyone already knows that I adhere strictly to the truth.

1 Reply

Oralloy does that annoying "stupid-American" thing of calling the United Kingdom "England". It shoots big holes in your credibility, big guy. Maybe in this post-factual age that doesn't matter?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

All of that shot right over your head. I suppose one could say (from the depths of their ignorance) that cutting off the head of the first King Charles in January, 1649 constituting deposing him. Saying the people "got upset" shows how little you know about the period of the civil wars in England (and Scotland), a crucial period in the history of that nation, which pitted Parliament against the King. The people had precious little to do with the decisions of Parliament, which was "elected" by fewer than two percent of adult males.

Tucker's remarks about "condition and degree" were taken directly from Blackstone, and were very pertinent to the abrogation of the right to keep and bear arms, especially as Catholics, Jews and several dissenting sects were debarred from keeping firearms as were tradesmen and those not entitled to hunt game under the provisions of the forest and game laws. You've missed the point of my post entirely.

Finally, to put the cap on this wonderful display of your ignorance, there's your claim that the "English Bill of Rights" [sic] was passed after the king was deposed because the people got upset. Charles I was decapitated (a wonderfully irreversible way to depose a monarch) slightly over 40 years before Parliament passed An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown, in 1689. Few if any members of the rump of the Long Parliament who had tried and executed the king were still alive then, and given the life expectancy, probably precious few of the people you refer to were alive at that time, too.

Your BS is always pretty transparently bad, but this exercise is one the most hilariously worst.

1 Reply

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

Oralloy does that annoying "stupid-American" thing of calling the United Kingdom "England". It shoots big holes in your credibility, big guy. Maybe in this post-factual age that doesn't matter?

No offense was intended.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Tucker's remarks about "condition and degree" were taken directly from Blackstone,

I very much doubt that Blackstone made any such claims about people who were not entitled to hunt game being denied guns after the English Bill of Rights. Those erroneous claims seem to be entirely the work of this Tucker character.

Setanta wrote:

and were very pertinent to the abrogation of the right to keep and bear arms, especially as Catholics, Jews and several dissenting sects were debarred from keeping firearms as were tradesmen and those not entitled to hunt game under the provisions of the forest and game laws.

This is incorrect. Tradesmen and those not entitled to hunt game were not prevented from having guns to defend their homes after the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Nor were they prevented from carrying guns when away from home.

Setanta wrote:

You've missed the point of my post entirely.

Your point was to advance an untrue claim about guns in England a few centuries ago.

I addressed your point by pointing out that it is completely untrue.

Setanta wrote:

there's your claim that the "English Bill of Rights" [sic] was passed after the king was deposed because the people got upset. Charles I was decapitated (a wonderfully irreversible way to depose a monarch) slightly over 40 years before Parliament passed An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown, in 1689. Few if any members of the rump of the Long Parliament who had tried and executed the king were still alive then,

And how about King James II?

Setanta wrote:

Your BS is always pretty transparently bad, but this exercise is one the most hilariously worst.

Your inability to point out a single fact that I am wrong about shows how untrue your statements about me are.

1 Reply

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know