The founding fathers are dead.

[rrneck]

May they rest in peace with our eternal gratitude for the work they did in the founding of this nation.

The United States is a country of some three hundred million people. We have the ability to individually cross the entire continent by land in under a week. Millions of tons of goods, legal and illegal, cross our borders every day. If some idiot falls off a skateboard in Los Angeles somebody in New York could see a video of it within the hour.

Concerns about what the founding fathers actually meant in the late eighteenth century regarding the technology and culture at that time, while interesting, are mostly useless in application to current issues today. I don't think they were necessarily concerned with printing presses, muskets, newspapers, or log cabins. They were concerned with something much more fundamental. They were concerned with people's relationship to each other and the role of government in that relationship.

While our society has changed a lot since 1776, people have not. We still fight, steal, rape, and murder just like we have for a million years. When any one of us perpetrates such an act of cruelty, while there is an albeit perverse relationship between the aggressor and the victim, a relationship between those involved and the government does not exist. That's why it's considered uncivilized, because we are not using the laws of our civilization to settle our differences.

Along the timeline of an assault, the closer we get to the moment the trigger is pulled or the knife is swung, the less government is able to influence the nature of the relationship between aggressor and victim. In that final rush of events, there is no relationship between those involved and government, so any discussion about what the founding fathers meant by what a militia was is or comma placement in the second amendment is moot.

The Constitution of the United States affirms the rights of each individual and a framework whereby we, as a collection of individuals, may govern ourselves. We no longer live in small hamlets where newcomers were immediately recognized and watched. Most of us have occupations that will never require us to physically exert ourselves. Many of us have no idea where our food comes from or what it's like to slaughter an animal for meat. And yet, for all our civil and technological sophistication, we are still human. And some of us still do what some humans have always done. We still fight, rob, rape and steal.

There is a huge disparity of force between us and those who may be able to travel hundreds of miles anonymously to appear before us to harm us with little warning. An aggressor has tremendous latitude in the selection of the time and place of an ambush given our own ability to move about anonymously over equally great distances. We live in a culture where a great deal of information can be gleaned about us without any actual contact with us or even anyone we may know. The ability to individually defend ourselves is no less important now, and probably more so, than it was two hundred and fifty years ago.

Fortunately we live in a wealthy country with a good system of government. That good fortune means very few of us will ever have to personally defend ourselves from attack. But it still happens. And when it does, the best and perhaps only viable option for self defense is a gun. Any discussion of sensible gun laws need not concern itself with the founding fathers original experience of technology, but rather should always include a solution for the disparity of force between an individual living in this time and place and another who will probably be much stronger, agressive and desperate.

[sandnsea]

1. we still fight, steal, rape, and murder

WE might... but people in other countries don't.

WE give ourselves permission to carry out vengeance in the name of justice, because we have guns. That vengeance being a 1,000 forms of robbery, rape and murder.

[rrneck]

3. That is beyond stupid.

People in other countries fight, steal, rape and murder as well.

[Callisto32]

32. Have you been drinking?

That isn't even....coherent.

[SteveM]

68. Maybe she hasn't, but her remarks spurred me to stop here and take a toke. nt

[cleanhippie]

43. ARe you of the opinion that other countries do not fight, steal, rape, and murder?

and how do you equate vengeance (as defined by Merriam-Webster as "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution") with robbery, rape and murder?

Maybe I am missing something but you seem to be very confused here. Can you explain yourself better?

[KansasVoter]

2. Why not rocket propelled grenades then? The 2nd might deem those OK in this time period.

[rrneck]

5. RPG's are not reasonable for personal defense. nt

[KansasVoter]

6. Really, if China attacked you might need one. And where does the 2nd only say personal defense?

[rrneck]

9. Do you

have a self defense solution for someone who is assaulted by another not wielding a gun but rather using a knife, club, fists or feet? I think this is the third time I've asked you this question.

[KansasVoter]

10. No. Neither does England.

[Statistical]

14. Exactly. That is why their violent crime rate is 11x the rate in the United States.

The criminals have figured out the same thing you did that there is no deterrent when victims are disarmed.

Thus risk of injury, death, or detainment is lower. Predator population tends to grow when there is abundant prey.

Interesting fact is that you are more likely to be a victim of violent crime in UK than in crime plagued SOUTH AFRICA.

[KansasVoter]

29. How about murder rate? And people in prison per capita?

[Statistical]

57. Even with availability of firearms the US NON-FIREARM homicide rate is higher than UK.

US simply has always killed a lot of people. Maybe it is cultural, maybe it is genetic, maybe it is the rebellious nature but we have always had high homicide rate.

However our homicide rate has been cut nearly in half while the homicide rate in UK is rising.

Gun control doesn't reduce homicide rates. UK homicide rate was lower in the past. Banning guns didn't make the UK a safer place to live.

[KansasVoter]

60. What? 70% with firearms. Remove them and we are about the same as the UK.

[X_Digger]

64. As a percentage, not rate.

You know, the 'X offenses per 100,000 people'? Our non-gun homicide rate is higher than other countries total homicide rate, so even if you removed every single gun homicide (and even giving you no method substitution occurred), we'd still be head and shoulders above most European countries.

Percentages mean nothing, when comparing means in one country v another.

"OMG, Madeupistan has 95% murders by gun, and The Principality of Someotherville has 10% murders by gun." -- means nothing if there were 1 homicide per 100,000 in the first, and 100 homicides per 100,000 in the second.

eta: formatting

[Statistical]

65. LOL.

Lunacy that assumes every single murder with a firearm in the US would magically never occur with any other means.

The UK had lower homicide rate than the US PRIOR to banning guns. Banning guns DID NOT LOWER UK HOMICIDE RATE. The number of homicides stayed roughly the same (actually increased for a few years) as number of guns dried up criminals simply resorted to other means to kill victims.

The other point I was making is that EVEN WITH OVER 200 MILLION FIREARMS IN THE US WE STILL KILL MORE PEOPLE PER CAPITA BY NON-FIREARM MEANS THAN MOST OTHER COUNTRIES TOTAL HOMICIDE RATE
Think about that for a second. Even with the abundance of firearms in this country we STILL had more non-gun homicides than most countries ENTIRE homicide rate INCLUDING firearms. Think maybe the high homicide rate might have more to do with a) cripling poverty, b) social injustice, c) revolving door prison system, d) no social safety net, e) largest wealth disperity in the US, f) worthless war of drugs?

Maybe it has nothing to do with the GUNZ. Gun bans are a elementary school solution to a complex problem.



If banning guns in the UK had NO EFFECT on homicide rate why would you think that banning guns in US would somehow lower homicide rate?

Lastly I am confused I thought you supported the 2A and thus understand that banning guns is no more legal than banning books, or religion, or free press.

[KansasVoter]

66. Lighten up. It was a joke. "Remove Them" and it really is a tie.

[rrneck]

15. I suppose congratulations are in order.

You produced an honest answer. And the correct one to boot. Now, when you solve the disparity of force problem, we will live in a safer country and can argue futilely about something else.

Since you don't have a solution, do you think it's fair to malign those who produce their own?

[TPaine7]

18. You answered!!! I'm impressed.

"No." You do not "have a self defense solution for someone who is assaulted by another not wielding a gun but rather using a knife, club, fists or feet" and "{n}either does England."

I appreciate the honest answer to a inconvenient question--at least for those who oppose CCW.

Fortunately, while England has no answer, America does. That answer is protected by the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to not only keep but to BEAR arms. (And no, that doesn't mean from the living room to the bedroom.)

[rrneck]

22. I've asked that question a lot. People are probably tired of seeing it.

That's the first answer I've ever gotten.

[KansasVoter]

30. And England murders at 1/3 the rate we do.

[rrneck]

36. Who will get murdered

and who will just get beaten up? Who will just get knocked down and who will get put in a hospital for weeks? How many beatings will be followed by rapes?

Statistics can tell us how many, but they can't tell us who. Carefully parsing statistics to make a point about something so personal and important to people is arrogant and insulting.

Statistics are only really useful as a general guide, but are useless in discussions of how real lives are lived. They are fine as a coarse measuring tool of policies already in place, but are useless as a predictor of individual behavior.

When we create public policy based on statistics and abstract theories without considering how they will affect individual lives, we become ideologues wedded to our artificial conception of the world. It's bad public policy and bad politics.

[KansasVoter]

61. Only here is a lower murder rate defined as BAD. This place makes me laugh.

[PavePusher]

63. Where did you read that into what anyone said? n/t

[rrneck]

67. Are you sure you replied to the right post? nt

[TPaine7]

40. I seem to remember that England's murder rate was lower than ours

before they banned most guns. I don't know that from personal research, but I seem to have seen it posted here by a reputable poster (I'm not sure which).

(If anyone knows where the citation is, I would appreciate a little help.)

The unspoken premise that you seem to be working with is that guns account for the difference. If the murder rates were different before and if the non-gun murder rates are different now, that is a dubious assumption.

Basically, you may have a point, but your unspoken apparent premise must hold up--and I don't think it does.

[KansasVoter]

11. Does the 2nd only mean personal defense?

[rrneck]

16. No

[X_Digger]

31. The second amendment isn't a right itself..

Nor does it limit the right it protects.

Rights don't flow down from the government, they are all ours, and we allow government some powers that may, on occasion, infringe our rights. When that happens, the government has to provide a compelling reason. Depending on how well 'protected' the right is, the burden on the government may be increased.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Oh boy, the ordnance/crew served weapon canard.

Didn't see that one coming.

[Travis Coates]

38. Listen and understand,

Listen and understand, that Gungrabber is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, only fear. And it absolutely will not stop until you are ...disarmed

[cleanhippie]

44. sure, why not?

[damntexdem]

4. I don't fear the attacker -- I fear the nutcase who thinks a gun will be a defense.

When asked the archtypical question about what if someone started shooting up a restaurant where I was eating, wouldn't I want patrons armed with guns to protect us all, I say: "Hell no! I only want to dodge bullets coming from one direction, not a dozen of them."

[KansasVoter]

7. I need to remember that saying. Good one.

[rrneck]

8. I don't fear either one.

I've never been mugged. Never been assaulted. Never witnessed a mass shooting. My chances of any of those things happening to me hover somewhere between slim and none. But it does happen.

Do you have a way for someone to defend themselves from assault by another using a knife, club, fists or feet that doesn't involve a gun?

[KansasVoter]

13. Just try to make your point. We are waiting.

[rrneck]

17. You seemed to get the point just fine in post #9. nt

[cleanhippie]

46. Why do you get to get impatient at a repetitive question

that is actually a good question, yet at the same time, your posts seem to be the same thing over and over and over even when your points are logically and rationally refuted?

[SteveM]

70. He's still stuck on Troll 2.1

[Statistical]

12. Stop getting your knowledge of guns from movies.

"Hell no! I only want to dodge bullets coming from one direction"

You can't dodge bullets or even A bullet. They travel faster than the speed of sound. By the time you hear the gunshot you have already been hit or it already missed you. Sometimes people don't even notice being hit (no guns don't blow people across the room like movies/TV either) until the sound of the retort clues the brain into the fact that a gun was fired.

Soldiers are trained to look for the muzzle flash but that really only helps at very long ranges and is more to get out of the line of fire for followup shots on hopes the first one missed than any attempt to avoid first round.

At handgun ranges by the time see your brain comprehends the flash or retort you have been hit. There is no dodging unless you are caught in a gunfight in a TV drama or in the Matrix.

[Callisto32]

34. Just a little heads up:

It is "report" not "retort."

We cool?

Good, now gimme five. (Raises hand.)

[Caliman73]

20. You don't fear the person who walks into an establishment and randomly starts firing on people?

Okay, just to make sure I have your words here:

"I don't fear the attacker -- I fear the nutcase who thinks a gun will be a defense.

When asked the archtypical question about what if someone started shooting up a restaurant where I was eating, wouldn't I want patrons armed with guns to protect us all, I say: "Hell no! I only want to dodge bullets coming from one direction, not a dozen of them."

Okay, your words above...



You are saying that you would have NO fear of a person who would by mental defect, desperation of circumstance, or psychopathic criminality begin to fire indiscriminately at bystanders...? However, you DO fear the patron who only seconds before, was sitting across the aisle from you enjoying dinner or what have you? The person who like you is down on the floor trying to avoid being seen. If this person next to you, also looking to avoid being shot by the attacker has a license to carry a concealed firearm, you would be more afraid of that person than the person who is actually engaging in a violent act? Interesting.

So if this fellow victim of your buddy the attacker (of whom you have no fear whatsoever)has a clear line of sight and takes a shot and defeats the attacker, you would run screaming in fear of the person who stopped the attack? Would you lament that the attacker, who you have no fear off, was not able to complete the attack? Would you be mad at the CCL who prevented further victimization?

You make many assumptions, some of which may be true, but some of which are certainly not. You assume that if an attacker comes into a restaurant and starts shooting, that all of a sudden everyone who has a gun will just begin randomly shooting. You assume that people who carry a firearm are just waiting to shoot someone. It seems You are assuming that the attacker will just continue methodically shooting if confronted by force thus compounding the situation. There are some people out there who are "Rambo" types who say that they would do this or that. The reality is that when in danger, the first instinctual response is to freeze up, or to flee. Even if there are 5 people with lawfully concealed firearms, their first reaction will not be to start shooting it out. They will most likely hit the floor and try to figure out where the shots are coming from, like everyone else. Even police who are trained in this type of scenario freeze up momentarily. If and when they get their wits about them, then they will have to decide whether to risk their safety to confront the attacker. If they do decide to confront the attacker, then they become the primary target and the pressure is off of the other people in the restaurant. Most of the time when an attacker is met by equal force, they will run away, so whether the fellow victim even hits the attacker, the attack has a better than average chance of being over.

So, if you want to buddy up to the attacker and place your fear on people who up until that moment you did not even know were armed, you can surely do so.

[proteus_lives]

23. LOL.

"I don't fear the attacker -- I fear the nutcase who thinks a gun will be a defense."

You literal say you only criminals to be armed.

:rofl:

[SteveM]

71. Well, if your drunk enough you poop your pants & don't even know it.

[eqfan592]

24. This is a statement born of pure ignorance. (nt)

[PavePusher]

25. Right, because Citizens having to lawfully use firearms in self-defense...

have such a poor track record of mowing down innocents.

Or something.

I'm sure you have reams of evidence to support your assumption, and will gleefully post it any day now...

[DonP]

26. Really? Got an example? Even One?

I get tired of hearing the same old tired line, "How will the cops know who the bad guy is", "If other people had a gun it will be a bloodbath" et. al. But none of you seem to ever have a single example of these oft predicted wild shoot outs with CCW holders shooting a place up and wounding or killing dozens of innocent bystanders.

Got any substance behind that "logic"? Anything?

[Callisto32]

33. You don't fear illegitimate violence, but legit violence frightens you?

Awesome.

I mean it is awe-inspiring.

Not in a good way.

[cleanhippie]

45. To put that in perspective....

You will most likely go through your whole life without ever eating in a restaurant where someone starts "shooting it up" and even less likely to have to "dodge bullets from dozens of directions" from armed patrons.

Perhaps a more practical example of how you feel a CCW holder will endanger you would be more appropriate, don't you think?

[GreenStormCloud]

47. If you aren't the active shooter, you won't have to dodge the bullets.

We do have to pass a proficiency test to get the license.

[SteveM]

69. "...the nutcase who thinkgs a guns will be a defense." Can't agree...

It is a defense, it just doesn't guarantee that it will work.

[safeinOhio]

19. What the Founding Fathers did

mean was that white, free(not indentured), men, land or property owners were able to own and possess guns. They never thought that it extended to others. It was not to be extended to other for another 70 years long after they were dead and buried. Original meaning is a very slippery slope.

[TPaine7]

21. How about the original meaning of the Constitution *as amended*?

We can't slide down the slippery slope to prohibition, for example, because the amendment repealing serves as a stop before we can get to it.

[safeinOhio]

27. Not many, hardly any are for prohibition

of guns. Most likely about the same as for alcohol. It comes down to what restrictions are reasonable for guns. The same question as for speech, fair trials and legal searches and seizures. Every year those issues are in court and there are shifts in those liberties. Sometimes those shifts are based on original meaning and many are based on common sense related to the modern world.

[TPaine7]

39. You must see that a free-floating "reasonbleness" standard

makes the Constitution itself meaningless. To some degree, by saying in the Constitution that you have a right to X, we have already said that most efforts by the state to control your behavior in the area of X are unreasonable. Thus we have, to a large extent at least, taken the issue or "reasonableness" off of the table. And we have done so using the instrumentality of the highest legal authority.

Let's examine a concrete case. We have a right to free speech. George Bush's (or his goons') initiative to move people with unfavorable T-shirts to free speech zones was unreasonable. I don't have to wait for an elaborate trial to know that, it has already been determined. To my mind, it should be a felony to so obviously violate the Constitution under color of law--a felon leading to hard time.

Now, of course there are exceptions to our free speech rights. For example, I cannot order murder for hire using free speech. But we do not arrive at this conclusion by a free-floating "reasonableness" opinion. The rationale for this exception is not "well, that sounds reasonable to me and that doesn't." Using that standard, we can arrive at any given point.

To put it bluntly, rights are swaggering giants--they only yield to other giants. My right to speak freely is a smaller giant than your right to live. That is what gives the government the legitimate authority to forbid me to hire a hit. "It doesn't seem reasonable" just doesn't cut it, IMO.

Sometimes those shifts are based on original meaning and many are based on common sense related to the modern world.

I totally agree. If the technology existed such that my saying the words "drop dead" to you would unleash a chain of events that would actually cause your death, it would logically be illegal for me to say those words to you. That would be a very different state of affairs from the founding era, but only superficially. It is, and should be, illegal for me to murder you by any means whatsoever. The "new" rule would be the application of an ancient principle--the balancing of rights; it would follow logically from "common sense related to the modern world." You are perfectly correct.

My point is that shifts "based on common sense related to the modern world" must always be grounded in the balancing of rights or in some other bedrock principle, not in free-floating "reasonableness" standards.

[safeinOhio]

48. I don't recall anyone going to jail

because of the use of "free speech zones". I agree that it was illegal. What we agree on doesn't mean squat. We may never agree on NICS checks on private sales. Do they infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. I say not in the least as they are already required for dealer sales, proving they do not infringe.

My real world opinion on gun rules are tempered by the real world. Culture, crimes, civil liberties, court decisions, politics, public opinions and the latest front page news. Ideologies have their place, opposing ones, like in economics shift back and forth. I still say events will determine gun policies in the future. I like to use 9/11 as an example. Civil liberties have been curtailed by that one event. A similar event involving guns, like if the Hutaree militia had succeeded would have cost gun owners some of their rights. Here in Ohio I can't have a 30 round mag for my Glock, if it holds more than 30, 30 in the mag and one in the chamber, it is considered an automatic and is outlawed. I had to get rid of the one I owned when I moved here. I have no problem with that as I'm able to still own and carry my Glock. It is reasonable to me, and I'm sure it would not be for you. Real world. If that militia had mowed down 100 cops at a funeral, the right to own a 30 round mag, might no longer exist in Michigan or anywhere else as the public outrage would steer policy. Many here say rules just don't stop criminals. I think they do slow illegal acts. It use to be very easy to purchase high power firecracker like M80s. They are very hard to get now because of the crack down on explosives. Illegal acts of possessing and using those types of fireworks have been cut by more than half. BTW, I have no figures on that, just observation. I don't think it is possible to keep all handguns out of the hands of criminals. On the other hand, I think there are some reasonable ways to slow the movement of legal guns into the hands of criminals without greatly affecting those that can legally own them. That, I hope would continue the downward movement of gun crimes making my rights even more secure.

[TPaine7]

50. You are correct--mob sentiment has overwhelmed the Constitution

as far as civil liberties are concerned.

But that is what is; I thought we were discussing what is legitimate. You appear to be making the case that what is should be, by virtue of the fact that it is. Mob mentality should lead to violations of civil liberties, and we know that because mob mentality does lead to violations of civil liberties.

I don't want to misrepresent your position; I'm simply telling you how it seems to me.

As I said, I thought we were discussing what the legitimate boundaries on government power are. If we are discussing what the practical, political limits are, you are correct: what we agree on doesn't mean squat, and your analysis may be 100% correct.

[safeinOhio]

51. Mob sentiment or Democracy

The best part of our representative democracy is that leaders that go too far can be voted out. At the same time the Constitution protects against major changes. While, I'm afraid, the majority is for the Arizona laws on immigration, it looks like the courts will toss it. I see it the same on the 2nd. The court has sealed the right to own a handgun. Now the law will be chipped, not destroyed, around the edges. The court made that legitimate, but left the details to the lesser courts and governments.

[TPaine7]

52. Mob sentiment allowed the Bush regime to get away with torture and illegal spying and renditions

and secret prisons and ...

Not democracy in a CONSTITUTIONAL system, mob sentiment. Democracy would have been AMENDING the Constitution to allow torture and rendition and...

[SteveM]

72. I see your point, but 2A defenders are quick on the draw...

"The court made that legitimate, but left the details to the lesser courts and governments."

They left what they did not rule on to lesser courts and governments, but 2A advocates are highly mobilized and are playing fox & hounds quite quickly. The unknown factor is when (I don't even think "if") progressive 2A defenders change the tenor of the debate so that the Democratic Party is no longer associated with "Gun-Control." That will go a long way toward removing any remaining zeal to chip around the edges.

[rrneck]

35. The slippery slope that I see (or think I see)

is a sort of "constitutional fundamentalism". The constitution was an important and visionary document, but it has been followed by a mountain of case law. When I read post after post about the terms "regulated" and "militia" I want to scratch my head a bit, even if the posters are correct.

This "constitutional fundamentalism" has authoritarian underpinnings. The most conservative members of the Supreme Court are strict constructionists. That sort of originalism comes from a mindset that, to my mind, is unproductive. Dominionists are always claiming the same sort of originalism when they declare the United States a "christian nation". It seems to turn the Constitution and the founding fathers into authority figures whose wishes must be obeyed long after they are dead and gone. And of course those who can convince us that they can divine the true intent of the now absent will accrue great power.

It seems to me that the constitution is not a source of authority but a tool that must be applied to the circumstances that surround it.

[TPaine7]

41. Dominionists' originalism is based in a false history.

The founders specifically denied creating a "Christian nation." George Washington said in a letter regarding the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States is not a Christian nation. IIRC, his letter was widely published with no great outcry from the American people, who actually understood what America was meant to be.

The Dominionist's problem is basic honesty, not original intent. If the Constitution actually called for the dictates of Dominionist theology to be carried out, the solution would be amendment. Or failing that, war.

It seems to me that the constitution is not a source of authority but a tool that must be applied to the circumstances that surround it.

I'm not sure I follow. If I am a private and a general gives me a direct order, the order is not the source of authority. Perhaps it can be thought of as a tool, though I find that a unusual analogy.

If the written order says "load the jeep with the three boxes just outside building 742 and drive to headquarters to meet me" there is no ambiguity. If the order says, "keep Private Smith's son company and make him feel at home" then I guess it is a tool in the sense that it can guide my decisions about how to act.

In any event, the orders are not the source of authority, the general is. Similarly, the Constitution is not the source of authority, the people are.

And of course those who can convince us that they can divine the true intent of the now absent will accrue great power.

To me, that is more a function of hypocrisy and selective interpretation. It seems to me that if the express will of the people is less authoritative, it will be easier for unscrupulous characters to accrue power, not harder. Making the Constitution more a tool rather than a set of orders is to make the outcome of any constitutional process more completely a function of who is wielding the tool.

[rrneck]

55. I agree.

As long as the people are using the tool of the constitution and the body of law that follows it, the system will work just fine. It starts to break down when authoritarian leaders interpose themselves between the people and thier government with claims of some special understanding or expertise that promises to save people the trouble of thinking for themselves.*

As far as I'm concerned Ayn Rand, Milton Freidman, Paul Helmke and Josh Sugarman belong in the same shit bucket with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

*Here's an interesting book on the subject. And it's free: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[X_Digger]

56. Well, judicial review involves a lot of intent determination

Most of the rules of determining applicability / constitutionality of a particular law starts off with, "What does the text say?" Then, if there's any ambiguity about the text, "What did the lawmakers intend."

That's not a principle of strict constructionism, or "living document"-ism, either- that's our system of law.

[rrneck]

58. That's true.

I may be oversimplifying this thing, but in terms of the second amendment we don't need to do any investigation into the intent of the framers.

The second amendment mentions "militias" and "the people". Militias are a subset of the people since there cannot be more militia members than people unless we make dogs and cats citizens. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms assumes that a portion of the people may elect, under extreme circumstances, to form a militia, but until such time as that is necessary the people get to have guns.

Am I overlooking anything?

[X_Digger]

59. Makes sense to me, I suppose.

But I take it more as a "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the store." statement- stores don't only sell soda. That might be why I'm going, but it in no way limits what stores provide.

I just get a little bent out of shape when someone disparages some judge somewhere when they look to what the framers of a law intended. The reality is, that's perfectly valid in many cases, and isn't 'activism'.

Of course, you're right that a judge doesn't have to go further back than the most recent precedent that applies. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS level cases that deal squarely with the second amendment can be counted on both hands (and maybe a toe or two.)

[MisterBill45]

62. I think respecting the history and minds of the founders....

Which were undeniably remarkable, is wise. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, Paine and dozens of other intellectual giants all at the same time in the same place with a common purpose. That's simply remarkable anywhere at any time. Especially for a tiny backwater like the U.S. in 1789.

One of the things that's always made he happy I'm a liberal is the ability to grasp that I want someone who's smarter than me in office if at all possible. I feel that way about the constitution. It was written by a bunch of people who were a lot smartwe than I am, so I'm loath to take issue with it. Discounting the work of these enlightenment giants would be like disregarding Locke, Bentham, Spinoza and Voltaire. I suppose you could, but you'd be disregarding some very powerful ideas put across by people recognized even at the time as geniuses. Why would you?

It's not just the document itself. That's critically important because it sets the framework for the country. You can even amend it if you want. You've just got to have a good enough argument to convince 2/3 of the people to go along with you.

But it's also important to grasp WTF they were talking about and the context in which they were discussing it. The individual right to keep and bear arms IS ambiguously written...from our perspective. You don't know what they were really getting at without knowing the history and the general thought at the time. If you ignore the many usurpations of this right on Englishmen over history, usurpations which the founders were well aware and justifiably fearful of suffering again, then you won't understand why RKBA wasn't made more specific in it's own right. -Because no one even questioned that right. They wouldn't have dreamed of infringing on infringing on individual arms because they felt that the people needed to retain some defense against a tyrannical federal government. Self-defense wasn't even discussed as something that would be limited.

If you don't like that amendment, there's a way to change it. Isn't that cool?

I don't see that anything has changed. Almost all of Europe functions under a system where rights are a matter of legislative fiat and tradition. The courts simply don't enter into it most times. It's what gets them hate-speech laws. One of the worst official, sanctioned abuses of human rights I've ever seen from a supposedly "civilized" people.

Our system simply works a lot better at supporting individual rights. It may be worse in a lot of areas, but that's not one of them. It's the reason I could never permanently emigrate anywhere. I'll be damned if I'll call anywhere home that thinks of my rights as something up for grabs depending on who's in power.

I don't think it's fundamentalism that you have a problem with. You're talking about wooden literalism. With respect, I don't think any of the conservative members of the court would support that approach. Despite rulings I didn't like, they did give W the smack-down a few times and have been pretty solid on free speech. Overall, the system works out eventually. Representative Democracy is just really slow at fixing things. It's supposed to be. It protects us from rash action.

[PavePusher]

28. And we have fixed their errors with the mechanism they installed for doing so.

And we only screwed it up once.

But it's not correct to blithely say "Oh, that's wrong, we'll just ignore it". That is an even worse slippery slope.

[MisterBill45]

42. Please explain

Not sure I really understand this:

"Concerns about what the founding fathers actually meant in the late eighteenth century regarding the technology and culture at that time, while interesting, are mostly useless in application to current issues today. I don't think they were necessarily concerned with printing presses, muskets, newspapers, or log cabins. They were concerned with something much more fundamental. They were concerned with people's relationship to each other and the role of government in that relationship."

The understanding of the culture wasn't country specific or even tied only to that time. They were simply expressing the enlightenment ideals we still use today in pretty much the entire western world.

Anyone who says the constitution is outmoded, or isn't applicable any more because of technology or whatever misunderstands the whole system of the U.S. Government. Such willful ignorance shouldn't be engaged, it should just be ridiculed and then promptly ignored.

I for one, am rather tired of these crypto-fascists hiding behind the "progressive" label whilst working as hard as they can to wreck individual rights in the name of protecting me from myself. Bunch of damned busy-bodies and self-righteous pricks IMO. There's nothing "progressive" about them. How about this for one of those unwritten rights that the 9th amendment guarantees: the right to be left alone unless YOU are hurting someone else.

[safeinOhio]

49. I think the

7th might as well be stricken from the Bill of Rights. Not because it was in error, because it is so disregarded as to be meaningless today. Jury awards are overturned everyday. Caps and limits are every where and more and more people are calling for torte reform. All illegal to me. All of the caps and reversals seem to favor corporations and none in favor of the citizen.

[MisterBill45]

53. I was thinking the same thing about the second amendment in 1993

We don't need to abolish it, just follow it. Sadly the peepul seem to be too stupid to grasp that they consistently vote themselves into economic oblivion and political powerlessness. After all, we mustn't question Saint Reagan and the trickle-down theory. He was God in a suit. He couldn't have been wrong..../sarcasm

[rrneck]

54. Check out

post # 35.

:hi: