/dev/null Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I've said this before (to some criticism) any defense of the 2nd amendment with no limits, should allow me to have a nuclear weapon. If you don't agree with that statement, then you already believe in imitations. I do not have an issue with private ownership of nuclear weapons. Provided you have the means to safely store the radioactive material as the radiation would infringe upon your neighbors. Rights do come with responsibilities
Acantha Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) You should beat that drum for awhile, then. The Constitution is a living document, subject to reasonable interpretation. Words are used to convey meaning and ideas, within the context of the time they are used. I have the same issue with people who believe the bible is literal truth. One of the biggest crocks of bull **** ever put forth. The meaning of the words in the constitution were exact and meant for a very specific reason. Do people really truly believe that the leaders of our nation drafted a new form of government and intended for all of the rules to be interpreted any way anyone wanted? The Constitution is a living document because of the built in ability to amend it! Changing the meaning of it any time a new political force gets into office makes the entire thing meaningless. People act like we have no way of knowing what the creators of our government intended, but that's untrue. If there was anything that they were good at back then, it was writing things down. Long letters and articles from almost everyone involved in the process of creating our government are out there. There were those that wanted powerful government and those that wanted no government at any level, the end result was in the middle. Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights (it's in my signature for easy viewing). The idea is very clear. Despite the fact that the entire point of the Constitution was to spell out exactly what the different parts of the federal government were authorized to do (meaning anything else was outside their right), the Bill of Rights was put into place to further stress the restrictions that were put on them. The gun debate is a great example how both sides get it wrong. Here's issues from both sides of the argument: 1. The argument for gun rights: Even staunch supporters of the second amendment seem to get it wrong. The second amendment does not give Americans the right to have guns; that right was considered obvious and inherent. The second amendment specifically forbids the federal government from infringing on that right. There is no amount of interpretation that can change that. 2. The constitution is a FEDERAL DOCUMENT. I highly disagree with NRA fights that take state laws to federal court. There is nothing at all in the constitution that limits a state from limiting the availability of guns to it's citizens. If the majority of that state want stricter laws, and their state constitution allows for that, it is within their rights to do so. The people of that state are responsible for trying to get the laws changed to meet their ideals. They can either fight to get laws changed from within the system, or move to a state that already shares their beliefs. The choice is theirs. The entire point of the amendment process is that it is supposed to be very difficult to make changes to our FEDERAL system of government. The whims of the current political power or the current swaying of public opinion is NOT a reason to fundamentally change things. If Congress wants a federal law changed, it needs to make that case to each state and hope that it's argument holds enough water to make it happen. Otherwise, it's up to the states to take care of their people. Edited June 20, 2015 by Acantha
Gugny Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 The weakest cop-out I've ever heard. It lets you dismiss any opinion you don't think is correct with "You just heard that from so-and-so." No. It lets me dismiss any opinion that is formed without any other knowledge than hearing someone else say it. And I would only employ that dismissal if I actually knew that was the case. Here in Internet world, I'd have know way of confirming that since I wouldn't know most of you if I tripped over you. But please, continue to pretend you know what I mean better than I do.
The Dean Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 The difference is: slander and libel aren't criminalized. They're civil matters. And while limits are placed on free speech beyond that, they are generally for recognized issues of public safety - e.g. you're free to yell "Fire!" all you want...except in a public theater where there's no fire in an attempt to cause panic. So even restrictions on freedom of speech are recognized as limited and contextual. Indeed. But we do have criminal laws limiting certain kinds of assembly, incitement to riot, etc. The 1st Amendment clearly states "NO LAW", but we do have some laws that restrict free speech and assembly. My argument isn't, of course, to say there shouldn't be these restrictions. The 2nd Amendment is far more nebulous, IMO. Yet some want to interpret as a complete prohibition on any regulation with respect firearms. How does restricting certain types of firearms, or the carry of firearms in certain places infringe on the the creation of a well-regulated militia? I do not have an issue with private ownership of nuclear weapons. Provided you have the means to safely store the radioactive material as the radiation would infringe upon your neighbors. Rights do come with responsibilities Not based on the Constitution. There is zero about what qualifies one to own arms in the document.
Gugny Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 This is exactly anti-second amendment. I don't understand why people who are anti-gun try to dance around the issue. If you feel strongly about limiting who can have guns, the argument should be to amend the constitution. Make it a national discussion and try to get it changed. Don't hide behind an overwhelming false "interpretation" of the second amendment. It's not even close to "exactly anti-second amendment." Because I'd like to see changes to the amendment, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in the right to bear arms.
The Dean Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) One of the biggest crocks of bull **** ever put forth. The meaning of the words in the constitution were exact and meant for a very specific reason. Do people really truly believe that the leaders of our nation drafted a new form of government and intended for all of the rules to be interpreted any way anyone wanted? The Constitution is a living document because of the built in ability to amend it! Changing the meaning of it any time a new political force gets into office makes the entire thing meaningless. People act like we have no way of knowing what the creators of our government intended, but that's untrue. If there was anything that they were good at back then, it was writing things down. Long letters and articles from almost everyone involved in the process of creating our government are out there. There were those that wanted powerful government and those that wanted no government at any level, the end result was in the middle. Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights (it's in my signature for easy viewing). The idea is very clear. Despite the fact that the entire point of the Constitution was to spell out exactly what the different parts of the federal government were authorized to do (meaning anything else was outside their right), the Bill of Rights was put into place to further stress the restrictions that were put on them. The gun debate is a great example how both sides get it wrong. Here's issues from both sides of the argument: 1. The argument for gun rights: Even staunch supporters of the second amendment seem to get it wrong. The second amendment does not give Americans the right to have guns; that right was considered obvious and inherent. The second amendment specifically forbids the federal government from infringing on that right. There is no amount of interpretation that can change that. 2. The constitution is a FEDERAL DOCUMENT. I highly disagree with NRA fights that take state laws to federal court. There is nothing at all in the constitution that limits a state from limiting the availability of guns to it's citizens. If the majority of that state want stricter laws, and their state constitution allows for that, it is within their rights to do so. The people of that state are responsible for trying to get the laws changed to meet their ideals. They can either fight to get laws changed from within the system, or move to a state that already shares their beliefs. The choice is theirs. The entire point of the amendment process is that it is supposed to be very difficult to make changes to our FEDERAL system of government. The whims of the current political power or the current swaying of public opinion is NOT a reason to fundamentally change things. If Congress wants a federal law changed, it needs to make that case to each state and hope that it's argument holds enough water to make it happen. Otherwise, it's up to the states to take care of their people. You should know that even the creators of the Constitution didn't agree about the interpretation of every word. The 2nd Amendment clearly states there would be no infringement on the right to bear arms in order to create "a well-regulated militia". I'm not sure why you didn't include that context. Also, what was available as "arms" has changed significantly over the years. If you really believe words are stuck with unwavering meaning, then perhaps the "arms" covered are those available when the document was written. Edited June 20, 2015 by The Dean
Alaska Darin Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 You should know that even the creators of the Constitution didn't agree about the interpretation of every word. The 2nd Amendment clearly states there would be no infringement on the right to bear arms in order to create "a well-regulated militia". I'm not sure why you didn't include that context. Also, what was available as "arms" has changed significantly over the years. If you really believe words are stuck with unwavering meaning, then perhaps the "arms" covered are those available when the document was written. You're certainly not contending the a bunch of farmers who had just used their own privately owned weapons to defeat the world's greatest military power in a war would be limiting ownership among the free citizenry, right?
Acantha Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) You should know that even the creators of the Constitution didn't agree about the interpretation of every word. The 2nd Amendment clearly states there would be no infringement on the right to bear arms in order to create "a well-regulated militia". I'm not sure why you didn't include that context. Also, what was available as "arms" has changed significantly over the years. If you really believe words are stuck with unwavering meaning, then perhaps the "arms" covered are those available when the document was written. No, the Constitution does not include the right to bare arms so that it could create a militia. It says that because a strong militia is necessary, the government cannot restrict the right to bare arms. You might not see a difference there, but I certainly do. I didn't include it because it doesn't apply to any point on the discussion of the fact that the amendment restricts the right of the government to infringe on the right to bare arms. The reason is meaningless. If there is something about the amendment that no longer makes sense, that's fine...change it. As to your second point, which is another incredibly nonsensical quote that is unleashed at these times, I have a few easy responses: 1. Obviously weapons have changed. Weapons also changed throughout history prior to the Bill of Rights being written, and in fact during the lifetimes of those involved in the writing process. To think that they didn't understand that weapons would continue to change is insulting and ignorant. 2. The Bill of Rights does not spell out what "arms" are, so why would any interpretation do so? 3. As previously stated, the idea behind ensuring the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights was because the founders wanted to ensure Americans had a way of fighting back. If their enemies have access to enhanced weapons, does it make sense that they wanted their countrymen to defend themselves with inferior weapons? Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson wanted the equivalent of American fighting British muskets with short swords? And even though I think I'm making a pretty clear point, I'll clarify. I honestly don't care about debating whether Americans should have access to every type of armament. I only care that IF the federal government decides to limit arms in any way, they do so through the legal means spelled out in the Constitution. If Americans decide it's time to change things, that is our right as a nation. It is not the right of the Congress, President, or Supreme Court to decide that on their own. So instead of continually discussing the meaning behind each word in the constitution and bogging down the discussion in pointlessness, I have a question that goes out to you and all others like you. Why shouldn't Congress make changes through the clearly defined amendment process? Edited June 20, 2015 by Acantha
Acantha Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Bear... Dude, you'll take away my rights to short sleeve shirts over my cold dead body! hmm...can I blame auto-correct?
KD in CA Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Dude, you'll take away my rights to short sleeve shirts over my cold dead body! hmm...can I blame auto-correct? The Founders were not specific on sleeve length. Prudence dictates some reasonable limits on wife-beaters.
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 No. It lets me dismiss any opinion that is formed without any other knowledge than hearing someone else say it. And I would only employ that dismissal if I actually knew that was the case. Here in Internet world, I'd have know way of confirming that since I wouldn't know most of you if I tripped over you. But please, continue to pretend you know what I mean better than I do. Yeah, I'll just pretend I've never seen you play the "I'm an original thinker and everyone else is a drone" card. Enjoy your delusion.
Gugny Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Yeah, I'll just pretend I've never seen you play the "I'm an original thinker and everyone else is a drone" card. Enjoy your delusion. Oh, hello, Pot. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Kettle.
truth on hold Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 You should know that even the creators of the Constitution didn't agree about the interpretation of every word. The 2nd Amendment clearly states there would be no infringement on the right to bear arms in order to create "a well-regulated militia". I'm not sure why you didn't include that context. Also, what was available as "arms" has changed significantly over the years. If you really believe words are stuck with unwavering meaning, then perhaps the "arms" covered are those available when the document was written. It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting.
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Oh, hello, Pot. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Kettle. Even your insults are unoriginal.
GG Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting. Ok, genius, tell us exactly how you interpret this, literally: 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.
/dev/null Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Ok, genius, tell us exactly how you interpret this, literally: 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. If you've spent any time in PPP recently and read JTSP's thread on why business is booming in ISIS controlled territory, you will understand what kind of well regulated militia he prefers
Recommended Posts