Penn Jillette on Glenn Beck tonight

[Invictus ChiKen]

Sorry if this is the wrong spot. Thought I'd start a thread for anyone watching it's feedback.

Apologies if I shouldn't have. He's already made a good point about how rare good science shows are on TV and the attitude people have of science = bad.

[applejack]

I’m rather dismayed by Gilette’s apparent anarcho-libertarianism. Not only is he coming across as a corporate apologist with his contention that corporate control of America is a good thing, but also his rather simplistic interpretation of the second amendment is pretty damn disturbing. I mean, people need guns to carry out the next violent American Revolution? WTF?

[Darth Wong]

Pity the nation for whom this clown (a guy who has no actual scientific education whatsoever as far as I can tell) is considered one of its most credible science advocates.

Basically, he's just an example of a typical Google-taught "expert", albeit one who happens to have a libertarian preference.

[Terralthra]

I mean, people need guns to carry out the next violent American Revolution? WTF?

Strictly speaking, that is why the 2nd Amendment's there.

[Scottish Ninja]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It actually seems to me more of a provision for national defense, especially in a case where Jefferson, for one, considered a standing army a symbol of tyranny and infringed upon freedom.

[Terralthra]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It actually seems to me more of a provision for national defense, especially in a case where Jefferson, for one, considered a standing army a symbol of tyranny and infringed upon freedom.

Read St. George Tucker, the constitutional theorist. Relevant quotes, just as an excerpt or two, from 1803:

Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, Vol. II, p. 412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance 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."

Emphasis mine.

In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.

And Justice Joseph Tucker, 1833

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Emphasis mine.

Yes, protecting the nation from external threats was a factor. So was protecting from tyranny.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The biggest issue was state power to call up a militia. However, Shay's Rebellion went to great ends to portray itself as akin to the militia of the Revolution, but this constitutional interpretation was rejected by all the Framers at the time. The militia was an acceptable instrument of popular reaction only when there was no legal or constitutional means of remedy. Most political theorists thought that since there was now a representative republic, you could not riot or take up arms. Adams I believe said that the capital punishment for treason under a monarchy was abominable, but that treachery in a republic should demand execution.

The second amendment was originally a civic right owed to the community or state by the people; the government had the right to inspect your home and musket to make sure it was in fighting order and to fine you for failing upkeep or failing to muster. Its original meaning has no relevance today, though it has transmogrified into a quasi-individual right to own firearms.

[Braedley]

I've watched all the Penn and Teller: Bullshit episodes, and while I agree with most of the stances that they take on the issues that they present, I just couldn't, for the life of me, agree with them on their gun control episode.

And I wouldn't give him the distinction of credible scientific advocate, just entertaining scientific advocate.

[Darth Wong]

<snip founding father wanking>

Who gives a fuck what your founding fathers thought? Why should a modern gun control debate be dictated by what they said? And don't say it's all about "constitutionality"; people are quite free to debate the merits of an idea on its own, without worrying about how or whether one would have to change the constitution to make it happen. Constitutionality only comes into play at the point of implementation, and even then only if it is impossible to reconcile the idea with the language of the legal document.

[FireNexus]

Fun bit with a strict interpretation of the US constitution: It gives US States the right to establish religion, restrict the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembley, since it only explicitly takes those rights away for Congress. Perhaps the strict interpreters should shut up and look at the logical meaning of the second amendment and the framers letters regarding Shay's rebellion.

[Surlethe]

Fun bit with a strict interpretation of the US constitution: It gives US States the right to establish religion, restrict the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembley, since it only explicitly takes those rights away for Congress. Perhaps the strict interpreters should shut up and look at the logical meaning of the second amendment and the framers letters regarding Shay's rebellion.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Hasn't the sixth article of the Constitution been interpreted to mean that state laws may not contradict the Bill of Rights?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Originally, Surelethe, the Bill of Rights was thought not apply to the States. It didn't contradict the constitution, according to that view, because the constitution was "strictly" interpreted as only restricting Congress from doing those things, not individual states' legislatures.

It's since changed, partly due to the principle of inclusion that took place over many decades as courts gradually expanded it through cases. The States couldn't contradict powers given to the federal government or if the constitution said powers were forbidden to them, but it simply mentioned Congress, so they took it and ran with it for a while.

[Alyrium Denryle]

<snip founding father wanking>

Who gives a fuck what your founding fathers thought? Why should a modern gun control debate be dictated by what they said? And don't say it's all about "constitutionality"; people are quite free to debate the merits of an idea on its own, without worrying about how or whether one would have to change the constitution to make it happen. Constitutionality only comes into play at the point of implementation, and even then only if it is impossible to reconcile the idea with the language of the legal document.

That's what he was talking about. The interpretation of said legal document taking into account its original intent. He did not say a thing about the societal merits of gun control in the modern period.

[Darth Wong]

<snip founding father wanking>

Who gives a fuck what your founding fathers thought? Why should a modern gun control debate be dictated by what they said? And don't say it's all about "constitutionality"; people are quite free to debate the merits of an idea on its own, without worrying about how or whether one would have to change the constitution to make it happen. Constitutionality only comes into play at the point of implementation, and even then only if it is impossible to reconcile the idea with the language of the legal document.

That's what he was talking about. The interpretation of said legal document taking into account its original intent. He did not say a thing about the societal merits of gun control in the modern period.

No, he said "that's why the 2nd amendment's there". He's appealing to Founding Father wankery. There can be no intelligent argument made in the modern era for the idea that letting people buy rifles will somehow keep the nation safe from tyranny; it is strictly an archaic notion brought forward to the present day through traditionalism.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Who gives a fuck what your founding fathers thought? Why should a modern gun control debate be dictated by what they said? And don't say it's all about "constitutionality"; people are quite free to debate the merits of an idea on its own, without worrying about how or whether one would have to change the constitution to make it happen. Constitutionality only comes into play at the point of implementation, and even then only if it is impossible to reconcile the idea with the language of the legal document.

That's what he was talking about. The interpretation of said legal document taking into account its original intent. He did not say a thing about the societal merits of gun control in the modern period.

No, he said "that's why the 2nd amendment's there". He's appealing to Founding Father wankery. There can be no intelligent argument made in the modern era for the idea that letting people buy rifles will somehow keep the nation safe from tyranny; it is strictly an archaic notion brought forward to the present day through traditionalism.

I can agree with you (there are plenty of other reasons for private citizens to have weapons, self defense, hunting, hobbies, etc) but protection from government tyranny is not one of them.

On the other hand, we can probably resolve our disagreement by asking Terralthra what he intended to mean.

[Terralthra]

No, he said "that's why the 2nd amendment's there". He's appealing to Founding Father wankery. There can be no intelligent argument made in the modern era for the idea that letting people buy rifles will somehow keep the nation safe from tyranny; it is strictly an archaic notion brought forward to the present day through traditionalism.

I realize you like to attack people for "founding father wanking," but before you do that, you might want to make sure the people I'm quoting are actually founding fathers, or that I'm doing anything of the sort.

1) The person in the topic title believes in the right to bear arms as a deterrent to state tyranny.
2) Someone replies "wtf, that's crazy!"
3) I point out, quire accurately, that when it was written, that's one of the exact reasons it was written.
4) Someone questions that using the literal text of the amendment.
5) I provide precise evidence from an American law professor's commentaries on British history and a US Supreme Court Justice (neither of whom were Founding Fathers) that amply support the earlier statement regarding the 2nd Amendment's original purpose.

Nowhere in any of that did I actually state an opinion on whether or not the right to bear arms effectively stops tyranny, or whether gun control violates that right, or whether we should have the right to bear arms at all, and the extent of that right, etc. I also, at no point, brought up whether George Washington would've agreed, or what Thomas Jefferson wrote in his diaries; nor did I use them as an appeal to authority.

I made a statement of fact, and backed it up with evidence when questioned. It is quite possible to point out someone else's motive without agreeing with it, especially when said motives are a matter of historical record.

[Darth Wong]

1) The person in the topic title believes in the right to bear arms as a deterrent to state tyranny.
2) Someone replies "wtf, that's crazy!"
3) I point out, quire accurately, that when it was written, that's one of the exact reasons it was written.

There are only two possible ways to interpret this sequence of events:

1) You intended that statement to function as a rebuttal of #2, in which case you are very very wrong and you are 100% guilty of founding father wanking.

2) You actually intended to derail the thread with a complete red-herring which was never intended to make a point related to the subject, which is against the rules.

Which is it?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hasn't the sixth article of the Constitution been interpreted to mean that state laws may not contradict the Bill of Rights?

No. It was a constitutional innovation in the early 20th century, that the Bill of Rights is "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment through the due process clause and therefore applies against state law.

[Terralthra]

1) The person in the topic title believes in the right to bear arms as a deterrent to state tyranny.
2) Someone replies "wtf, that's crazy!"
3) I point out, quire accurately, that when it was written, that's one of the exact reasons it was written.

There are only two possible ways to interpret this sequence of events:

1) You intended that statement to function as a rebuttal of #2, in which case you are very very wrong and you are 100% guilty of founding father wanking.

2) You actually intended to derail the thread with a complete red-herring which was never intended to make a point related to the subject, which is against the rules.

Which is it?

Neither. Responses to a point in conversation and discussion don't have to be rebuttals to be cogent, and providing further information on a specific point is not "a red-herring."

This Jilette loon apparently believes that every American citizen should be armed with a military-grade firearm, so that the population can revolt against the government if they grow more tyrannical. To that end, he believes that gun control legislation should be repealed or altered so that assault rifles etc. can be purchased by anyone and everyone. That idea is preposterous, dangerous, and stupid.

Despite being crazy and dumb, that opinion is exactly what the writers of that amendment had in mind. Attempting to use their opinions and motives as justification for what this guy wants is exactly what makes this guy's policy proposal retarded. If anything, he's the one "founding father wanking" (he actually quotes the founding fathers at various times re. the right to bear arms, from what I can see).

I was repeating his justification, not stating my agreement with it. He's the one that is "very very wrong." I have, until this post, stated only verifiable factual information.

[Darth Wong]

Neither. Responses to a point in conversation and discussion don't have to be rebuttals to be cogent, and providing further information on a specific point is not "a red-herring."

Yes it is, if it derails the thread, which this one certainly has. Every goddamned time someone mentions guns on this board, we end up with another constitution-wank session, where everybody puts on his fucking lawyer hat. I'd love to take part in a political debate with Americans where anybody who tries to bring up the Founding Fathers gets an electric shock to the nuts.

[Terralthra]

Neither. Responses to a point in conversation and discussion don't have to be rebuttals to be cogent, and providing further information on a specific point is not "a red-herring."

Yes it is, if it derails the thread, which this one certainly has. Every goddamned time someone mentions guns on this board, we end up with another constitution-wank session, where everybody puts on his fucking lawyer hat. I'd love to take part in a political debate with Americans where anybody who tries to bring up the Founding Fathers gets an electric shock to the nuts.

Then tell that to the poster who brought up his opinions on gun control and the 2nd amendment.

[Darth Wong]

Neither. Responses to a point in conversation and discussion don't have to be rebuttals to be cogent, and providing further information on a specific point is not "a red-herring."

Yes it is, if it derails the thread, which this one certainly has. Every goddamned time someone mentions guns on this board, we end up with another constitution-wank session, where everybody puts on his fucking lawyer hat. I'd love to take part in a political debate with Americans where anybody who tries to bring up the Founding Fathers gets an electric shock to the nuts.

Then tell that to the poster who brought up his opinions on gun control and the 2nd amendment.

Ahem ... the person who tried to invoke the original intentions of the Oh-So-Important Founding Fathers would be you, fucktard. The person who started quoting early 19th century legal statements on the matter would be you, fucktard. What part of this do you not understand? To me, the 2nd amendment is just another piece of legalistic language which can be interpreted any of a number of different ways, but to you, it's apparently something where we have to go to scholars to find out what the Oh-So-Important Founding Fathers wanted it to mean!

[Wyrm]

Ahem. Getting back to the topic at hand, Jillette's suggestion is patently ridiculous, as there is a distinct lack of privately owned heavy armor vehicles and fighter planes. Any modern army worth its salt would be able to napalm any violent second American revolution to oblivion if it really wanted to.

I move that the US constitution be amended to address this deficiency.

[Darth Wong]

More to the point, the Iraqis had the right to bear arms under Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime. I didn't see it helping them.