3 ms·

Then why was the NRA so silent about Philando Castile?

by 1986 5y ago

_-david-_ 5y ago
Because he was in possession of a controlled substance and a gun which is illegal. Edit: not sure why I am being down voted but here is the statement https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912 https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > and a gun which is illegal. > not sure why I am being down voted Probably for stupid reasons, but a legitimate reason for downvoting you would be because that is no such thing as a gun which is illegal[0]; that's the whole point of the second amendment. 0: Except maybe something like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) if applicable arms limitation treaties make it also illegal for the military to possess one.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    I meant having a controlled substance while also having a gun is illegal. I did not mean to suggest the gun was illegal. That was poor wording on my part.
  - skissane 5y ago
    That's a very extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it outlaws all limits on civilian weapons ownership except those which also apply to the military. Even among gun rights activists, few would go as far as you are going here. The 2nd Amendment was originally only meant to apply to the federal government. Its original authors were happy for state and local government to regulate private firearms ownership, they just didn't want the federal government to be able to do it. At the time, various state and local laws existed restricting gun ownership, and the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no intention to disturb those laws. So they were a long way off the kind of gun rights absolutism that your views represent. It was only in the 1920s that the US Supreme Court began to interpret the 14th Amendment to mean that the Bill of Rights applied to the states, an interpretation that the original authors of the 14th Amendment likely did not envision or intend. And it didn't apply that interpretation to the 2nd Amendment until 2010. It still hasn't to the 3rd or 7th Amendments, nor parts of the 5th or 6th.
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > that it outlaws all limits on civilian weapons ownership except those which also apply to the military. Yes, that is the point; to ensure that militias independent of the national government have force parity with the professional military. (Although strictly speaking I'm talking about the underlying human right that it enforces, not the second amendment per se. Just like the right to free speech isn't actually contingent on the specific wording or intent of the first amendment.) > Even among gun rights activists, few would go as far as you are going here. Thanks, I guess? Though that's more a condemnation of most gun rights activists.
      - skissane 5y ago
        > Yes, that is the point; to ensure that militias independent of the national government have force parity with the professional military. But what about the professional militaries of the state governments? (Which still exist on paper in every state, and in practice too in 22 of them; the "state defense forces"). The 2nd Amendment's intention was certainly not to give militias force parity with the professional militaries of the state governments. The point was to reserve the regulation of militias, and civilian weapon ownership more generally, to the states, not to put them beyond government regulation altogether. The very phrase with which the 2nd Amendment began, "A well regulated Militia", presumed the continuing power of the state governments to regulate militias, and hence also regulate (and even restrict) private firearms ownership. > (Although strictly speaking I'm talking about the underlying human right that it enforces, not the second amendment per se. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to enforce a universal human right. That's reading back into it something in which you believe but in which the authors of the text itself by and large did not. There is no evidence that the majority of its authors and ratifiers shared your belief in a universal human right to gun ownership; very many of them had no problem with state and local laws limiting gun ownership, and the original intention of the text they enacted was solely to keep the federal government out of the matter.

Then why was the NRA so silent about Philando Castile?

by 1986 5y ago

Then why was the NRA so silent about Philando Castile?

Because he was in possession of a controlled substance and a gun which is illegal. Edit: not sure why I am being down voted but here is the statement https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912 https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912

a1369209993 5y ago
> and a gun which is illegal. > not sure why I am being down voted Probably for stupid reasons, but a legitimate reason for downvoting you would be because that is no such thing as a gun which is illegal[0]; that's the whole point of the second amendment. 0: Except maybe something like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) if applicable arms limitation treaties make it also illegal for the military to possess one.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I meant having a controlled substance while also having a gun is illegal. I did not mean to suggest the gun was illegal. That was poor wording on my part.
- skissane 5y ago
  That's a very extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it outlaws all limits on civilian weapons ownership except those which also apply to the military. Even among gun rights activists, few would go as far as you are going here. The 2nd Amendment was originally only meant to apply to the federal government. Its original authors were happy for state and local government to regulate private firearms ownership, they just didn't want the federal government to be able to do it. At the time, various state and local laws existed restricting gun ownership, and the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no intention to disturb those laws. So they were a long way off the kind of gun rights absolutism that your views represent. It was only in the 1920s that the US Supreme Court began to interpret the 14th Amendment to mean that the Bill of Rights applied to the states, an interpretation that the original authors of the 14th Amendment likely did not envision or intend. And it didn't apply that interpretation to the 2nd Amendment until 2010. It still hasn't to the 3rd or 7th Amendments, nor parts of the 5th or 6th.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > that it outlaws all limits on civilian weapons ownership except those which also apply to the military. Yes, that is the point; to ensure that militias independent of the national government have force parity with the professional military. (Although strictly speaking I'm talking about the underlying human right that it enforces, not the second amendment per se. Just like the right to free speech isn't actually contingent on the specific wording or intent of the first amendment.) > Even among gun rights activists, few would go as far as you are going here. Thanks, I guess? Though that's more a condemnation of most gun rights activists.
    - skissane 5y ago
      > Yes, that is the point; to ensure that militias independent of the national government have force parity with the professional military. But what about the professional militaries of the state governments? (Which still exist on paper in every state, and in practice too in 22 of them; the "state defense forces"). The 2nd Amendment's intention was certainly not to give militias force parity with the professional militaries of the state governments. The point was to reserve the regulation of militias, and civilian weapon ownership more generally, to the states, not to put them beyond government regulation altogether. The very phrase with which the 2nd Amendment began, "A well regulated Militia", presumed the continuing power of the state governments to regulate militias, and hence also regulate (and even restrict) private firearms ownership. > (Although strictly speaking I'm talking about the underlying human right that it enforces, not the second amendment per se. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to enforce a universal human right. That's reading back into it something in which you believe but in which the authors of the text itself by and large did not. There is no evidence that the majority of its authors and ratifiers shared your belief in a universal human right to gun ownership; very many of them had no problem with state and local laws limiting gun ownership, and the original intention of the text they enacted was solely to keep the federal government out of the matter.