Guns

[Yorkshire pud]

Whatever, the 2nd is beautifully written. "Shall not be infringed". Not a whole lot of wiggle room I know. Depending on your point of view that is a problem, or a key feature.

Doesn't it also say 'well regulated militia'?

[NowhereInTime]

Doesn't it also say 'well regulated militia'?

And it was also written when "arms" were muskets, bayonets and broadswords.  I highly doubt even the founders anticipated Glocks and Ar-15's.

[Jackpine Savage]

Doesn't it also say 'well regulated militia'?

Sure, but "shall not be infringed" means no regulation can preclude the people from firearms ownership. In other words, some regulation is fine, but not to the point of being prohibitive.

[Jackpine Savage]

And it was also written when "arms" were muskets, bayonets and broadswords.  I highly doubt even the founders anticipated Glocks and Ar-15's.

Or the internet. Or radio. Or any means of communication except for carrier pigeons, town criers, and moveable type press. Anything else is no-go.

[NowhereInTime]

Or the internet. Or radio. Or any means of communication except for carrier pigeons, town criers, and moveable type press. Anything else is no-go.

And yet look at the restrictions the government keeps trying to pass on the internet (mostly for corporate bandwidth interests) and look how much snooping the NSA & the FBI (Carnivor) do on the internet.  Look also at how much radio content is controlled by the FCC, including how and where one may broadcast, including needing a license to do so.
And yet none of this stops the average American from living their day to day life, does it?

[onan]

What does well regulated mean? well supplied, well managed, well trained? Does arms refer to an individual or does it refer to the many in the militia? Since a militia is under the laws of the state it is in, how often do they train, and why haven't I gotten a notice to put in my calendar? What are arms, anyway? Aren't grenades considered arms? Bazookas?

If this is such a well crafted amendment, how come it is so vague?

[Jackpine Savage]

It's really not vague. The 1780s definition of the term means "well functioning". I'm not going to take issue with men 200 years ago not using modern language. To do so is sophist. Do you also have a problem with Shakespeare's use of period tongue?

[Jackpine Savage]

And yet look at the restrictions the government keeps trying to pass on the internet (mostly for corporate bandwidth interests) and look how much snooping the NSA & the FBI (Carnivor) do on the internet.  Look also at how much radio content is controlled by the FCC, including how and where one may broadcast, including needing a license to do so.
And yet none of this stops the average American from living their day to day life, does it?

So? And the government snoops on you every time you buy a gun. There are lots of limits placed on the second amendment, many I agree with. It's when they become onerous and restrictive I have a problem.

[onan]

It's really not vague. The 1780s definition of the term means "well functioning". I'm not going to take issue with men 200 years ago not using modern language. To do so is sophist. Do you also have a problem with Shakespeare's use of period tongue?

No, lets leave billy alone. Tell me of these "well functioning" militias.

[Sardondi]

Doesn't it also say 'well regulated militia'?

District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller.....

And it was also written when "arms" were muskets, bayonets and broadswords.  I highly doubt even the founders anticipated Glocks and Ar-15's.

Let me see if I have this right: you're invoking original intent? Original intent? Well just knock yourself the hell out.

[RealCool Daddio]

District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller.....

DC vs. Heller:


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[Sardondi]

Bringing up "well-regulated militia" at this point with regards to the 2d Amendment is analogous to arguing the legitimacy of the Article One "Three-Fifths" Clause regarding enumeration of slaves for purposes of representation and apportionment: completely moot as having been fully and finally decided. 

[onan]

Bringing up "well-regulated militia" at this point with regards to the 2d Amendment is analogous to arguing the legitimacy of the Article One "Three-Fifths" Clause regarding enumeration of slaves for purposes of representation and apportionment: completely moot as having been fully and finally decided.

I agree, I only point out the well regulated militia clause to show the second amendment isn't written all that well.


But to add. One's supreme court seems to find favor and disdain depending on one's political leanings. I find it somewhat bothersome that if a court rules in favor of one thing then it is settled. Yet when another decision falls outside those parameters then debate is warranted.

[kf5iwe]

And it was also written when "arms" were muskets, bayonets and broadswords.  I highly doubt even the founders anticipated Glocks and Ar-15's.

Actually the original fight at Lexington was over CANNON. FIELD ARTILLERY. The order the red coats were enforcing was to sieze all cannons, powder, shot and all who posess them.
And yes I am unreasonable enough to think we should have them today. It is okay to disagree with me. This is America where we can have different thoughts and ideas.

[NowhereInTime]

District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller
District of Columbia vs. Heller.....
Let me see if I have this right: you're invoking original intent? Original intent? Well just knock yourself the hell out.

only as a function of responding to people declaring how perfect the amendment was written.  You already knew that,  though.

[PB the Deplorable]

The way I read it, the Amendment means we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right was important for a variety of reasons just like our other rights.  But it was so crucial for keeping our liberty that they included the extra verbiage to make that point.

Much of the writings in English 200 and some years ago don't resonate perfectly with English readers of today - language and the way it is used changes over time. 

But to me it's crystal clear what the Amendment means, and the people that never liked it in the first place have intentionally planted these questions to confuse our understanding of it.

[The Neverender]

Family Guy Right To Bear Arms


family guy does a funny bit about the right to "bear" arms

always cracks me up

[PB the Deplorable]

The way I read it, the Amendment means we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right was important for a variety of reasons just like our other rights.  But it was so crucial for keeping our liberty that they included the extra verbiage to make that point.

Much of the writings in English 200 and some years ago don't resonate perfectly with English readers of today - language and the way it is used changes over time. 

But to me it's crystal clear what the Amendment means, and that the people who have been planting these questions over the years never liked the Amendment in the first place and are trying to confuse our understanding of it.

[Yorkshire pud]

The way I read it, the Amendment means we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right was important for a variety of reasons just like our other rights.  But it was so crucial for keeping our liberty that they included the extra verbiage to make that point.

Much of the writings in English 200 and some years ago don't resonate perfectly with English readers of today - language and the way it is used changes over time. 

How does that square with this:

But to me it's crystal clear what the Amendment means, and the people that never liked it in the first place have intentionally planted these questions to confuse our understanding of it.

You crack me up PB; You accept that language changes over time and I don't think anyone disputes that-I don't necessarily agree it should, but I accept it does. But apparently a piece of text written over 200 years ago has the same meaning and context today as it did then?


I'm relieved you got in the "never liked it anyway" dismissal of anyone who raises doubts and/or alternatives. Far be it for anyone to revisit ancient text and question it's original meaning, although by your own admission, you accept language changes. If you hadn't got in the dismissal I'd have thought someone had hacked your account.

[PB the Deplorable]

How does that square with this:

Because it's clear enough to people that know that it means we have the right to have guns - and really, what else could it possibly mean?, but with an added bit that those expert at using sophistry can twist into something confusing. 

And there are always well meaning people eager to give anyone, including our enemies within, the benefit of the doubt and wonder whether they might have a point.  The resulting confusion is then reinforced for decades by our Media and government schools.  Next thing you know, it's become some sort of head scratcher - when it really shouldn't be.

Heaven forbid those that want to examine it further look back to other writings of the Founders to see what they had to say on the subject.

The Constitution and Amendments are not that hard to understand, unless one is a sophist or a lawyer.  One thing about it is that it is intentionally vague on the details in just the right places, so it can be interpreted as times change but still be true to original intent.  One example: 'keep and bear arms' can mean different levels of arms at different periods in our country's history.  That is where legislation comes in.  We always have the right to arms, but that does not necessarily extend to machine guns and RPGs.  Or crazy people. Or minors.  And so on.

[Yorkshire pud]

  One thing about it is that it is intentionally vague on the details in just the right places, so it can be interpreted as times change but still be true to original intent. 

I'm not a history professor but I would strongly resist the idea that the people of the 18th century had the wherewithall to even contemplate the 20th and 21st centuries let alone deliberately phrase a document vaguely to allow for any future interpretation. You give them undeserved and unfair gifts of foresight. Your laws were written the same as ours; tied very deeply into Christian principles of the time. It doesn't always hold they're right, it's what the politicians of the time knew, they had nothing to compare with. We have in the UK a constitutional monarchy but that effectively means the monarch reigns but doesn't rule the Commonwealth.


Instead of a constitutional document, we have Parliamentary sovereignty which oversees the statutes, treaties and judgments..because our parliament doesn't have a fixed term (used to the full in WW2), it is dynamic, and can and does make and change laws as and when it wants too.. We have a few ancient laws (such as the theft act. or murder) but that's only because there's no point reinventing the wheel. On the subject of arms..we had fairly stringent firearms laws but they became tightened up after Dunblane..


Parliament had no constraints or restrictions or had to word it to comply with something written over 200 years ago. They just wrote the legislation, voted on it, and passed the relevant law.

[PB the Deplorable]

I agree, I only point out the well regulated militia clause to show the second amendment isn't written all that well.


But to add. One's supreme court seems to find favor and disdain depending on one's political leanings. I find it somewhat bothersome that if a court rules in favor of one thing then it is settled. Yet when another decision falls outside those parameters then debate is warranted.

The thing about the Supreme Court is that their decisions are not the ultimate law of the land.  The Constitution and the Amendments are. 

The courts often get it wrong - and with all those 5-4 and 6-3 decisions it would be hard for them not to.  Justices were given lifetime appointments in the hope that their decisions would be based less on politics than the President and Legislative branches, who periodically have to go back to the voters.  I'm not sure it's turned out that way (less influenced by politics). 

People appointed to the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court are still people, and subject to all the influences and temptations that everyone else is.  They are far from infallible, and they shouldn't just get the final say without criticism or pushback.  Because we live in a society and it would be chaotic without something like this final authority, we agree as citizens to abide by their decisions.  But that is not to say we can't fight to get the ones we don't agree with narrowed, or even reversed.  Or even through legislation.  We even have the authority to remove Federal judges through the Impeachment process, and that is sorely underutilized.

One fight is between those that think decisions on certain issues should be made at the Federal level, and those that think they should be made state by state.  Guns, abortion, same-sex marriage, marijuana, and so many other issues fall under this.  Which theory the individual judges, and the court as a whole identifies with is incredibly important when the question of which level of government should decide comes up in a case.

Another - and related - fight is between those who are pure originalists, and those who think the Constitution is a 'living document'.  The originalists believe it should be interpreted as closely to the original intent of the Founders as possible, while others want to ignore that and squeeze the wording around in order to come to the decision they want.  The reality is the Founders did leave certain clauses open to interpretation, but for the rest the judges should not substitute their preferences in place of what is clearly written - a 'living document' become unrecognizable, and we cease being a self governing nation.  We are probably there now.

Still another - and related - fight is between those who want to restrict the government to those areas that are enumerated in the document, while other justices say the Executive and the Legislation can do what they want unless specifically forbidden.

So we end up with never ending fights on many issues of the day, regardless of how the courts rule.

[Yorkshire pud]

The thing about the Supreme Court is that their decisions are not the ultimate law of the land.  The Constitution and the Amendments are. 

                                                                                                                                                      And while ^^this is seen as the last word...

So we end up with never ending fights on many issues of the day, regardless of how the courts rule.

You'll get this^^^


Will the US be hanging onto the same parchment two hundred years from now? I fear it will.

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm not a history professor but I would strongly resist the idea that the people of the 18th century had the wherewithall to even contemplate the 20th and 21st centuries let alone deliberately phrase a document vaguely to allow for any future interpretation. You give them undeserved and unfair gifts of foresight...

We are just going to have to disagree on that.  Of course they didn't know the details of future society, technology, etc, but they did understand it would grow and change.

They were very shrewd observers of human nature, especially when it came to government power and the officials that would wield it.  Much of the Constitution was based on the inspiration of the political philosophers of their day, and earlier - there was a great deal of brilliance from Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and all the rest, as well as the experience of dealing with the King and his Parliament, and our own legislative bodies such as the House of Burgesses. 

They weren't writing specific laws to burden future societies, as I think you are implying, but instead gave us a brilliant template for writing our own laws.

Human nature doesn't change much at all over the centuries, and the Constitution is written for a government run by humans, not just for a specific place at a specific time.  I would argue that it - or something very close to it - would work anywhere and any time a free people have the ability and desire to implement it.

All one has to do is compare our modern leaders to our Founders to understand this.  We are very fortunate to have had selfless Liberty seeking people as the Framers of our Republic.  They will always tower over current politicians and their agendas.

[PB the Deplorable]

                                                                                                                                                      And while ^^this is seen as the last word...


You'll get this^^^

And so what.  It's more healthy than the alternative, which is dictatorship.

... Will the US be hanging onto the same parchment two hundred years from now? I fear it will.

I fear it won't

[Yorkshire pud]

And so what.  It's more healthy than the alternative, which is dictatorship.

That is the alternative? The UK, New Zealand, Israel amongst others don't have a written constitution...I'd suggest that the UK and NZ are not exactly suffering under a dictator..

[PB the Deplorable]

That is the alternative? The UK, New Zealand, Israel amongst others don't have a written constitution...I'd suggest that the UK and NZ are not exactly suffering under a dictator..

You don't fight about politics and the issues of the day over there?  You seem pretty feisty sometimes.

[Yorkshire pud]

We are just going to have to disagree on that.  Of course they didn't know the details of future society, technology, etc, but they did understand it would grow and change.

They were very shrewd observers of human nature, especially when it came to government power and the officials that would wield it.  Much of the Constitution was based on the inspiration of the political philosophers of their day, and earlier - there was a great deal of brilliance from Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and all the rest, as well as the experience of dealing with the King and his Parliament, and our own legislative bodies such as the House of Burgesses. 

They weren't writing specific laws to burden future societies, as I think you are implying, but instead gave us a brilliant template for writing our own laws.

Human nature doesn't change much at all over the centuries, and the Constitution is written for a government run by humans, not just for a specific place at a specific time.  I would argue that it - or something very close to it - would work anywhere and any time a free people have the ability and desire to implement it.

You're describing deities. Not humans who make mistakes or might re-evaluate. Do you seriously think those same people (All men!) would; furnished with knowledge from the last century come up with the same documents? And the human nature not changing thing is silly.. The USA didn't have women votes ratified until 1920 or so, and segregation until the 50's! That's just two major changes of human nature forcing a change of law.

All one has to do is compare our modern leaders to our Founders to understand this.  We are very fortunate to have had selfless Liberty seeking people as the Framers of our Republic.  They will always tower over current politicians and their agendas.

Rose tinted specs a 'must have' when you leave school? The founders had nowhere near the things to deal with that modern political leaders have to deal with..They probably wouldn't have been able to run a modern corporation let alone a technologically advanced country.  I dare say they'd be frightened to death if they were dropped into the street of a big modern city.

[Yorkshire pud]

You don't fight about politics and the issues of the day over there?  You seem pretty feisty sometimes.

Sure we do; but of the time; today. Relevant to this now. . When the by elections come around and enough vote against the incumbent, they get voted out. We don't bang on about how our ancestors laid down rules that stand above the law and we have to stick to them...or else. Here, the law stands as the last governor.

[PB the Deplorable]

You're describing deities. Not humans who make mistakes or might re-evaluate...

The ability to Amend the document IS the ability to re-evaluate (see Article V).  Who do you think put that in there, and why?

Compared to the greedy, power hungry elitists we have in place now, I can see how the Founders would seem like deities in comparison.

... The founders had nowhere near the things to deal with that modern political leaders have to deal with..They probably wouldn't have been able to run a modern corporation let alone a technologically advanced country.  I dare say they'd be frightened to death if they were dropped into the street of a big modern city.

Oh for fucks sake.  If, say, Thomas Jefferson or any of the rest of them were alive today, he would have grown up in the same modern society we did. 

Speaking of running a modern corporation, which of our current 'leaders' has ever done anything outside of holding public office?  Please begin your response with Obama and his accomplishments.