|
| Thread: The Structure and Content of the Second Amendment |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
posted October 21, 2005 05:24 PM |
|
|
those are all strong points imo..
(but prolly not as on topic as PM would like  )
funny cuz in Canada, we're always reviewing the charter of rights and adapting it to today's society.. the times are changing and if we were we need to be sensitive to that... if we weren't, women would still not be aloud to vote and would be the property of their husbands. Heck, I'd still be aloud to slave a few minorities.
another funny thing is that in Canada, if we want to protect our homes and family...
.... we get a home security system.
(waiting for another "this is not what this is about" but I just needed to get that off my chest.)
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 05:43 PM |
|
|
Consis --
I've tried to be polite despite your repeated attacks against me personally for using a common term in legal lexicon but now I'm asking you to stand down. I did not coin this term and you're really starting to annoy me about my "insistance" in using it. The term has been used for hundreds of years in a non-religious sense and the fact that you simply weren't aware of that until now does not justify your rudeness. The issue is a complete aside and your insistence on bringing it up over and over is interrupting the flow of the conversation.
Shiva --
I understand your point, but you speak as though the illicit use of firearms is a recent phenomenon. Guns have been used for ill purposes all along, it's just that the ill purposes have changed over the years. American society has had some form of individual combat going on all along. (Remember Aaron Burr?)
So while I agree that the Second Amendment was never intended to protect such activity, what is the impact of this argument on the intent and application of the Second Amendment to the present day?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 21, 2005 10:02 PM |
|
|
Fine . . .
. . .(standing down). . . This thread was confusing me anyway.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 21, 2005 10:12 PM |
|
|
|
(Thank you, dear... I dun think you're the only one....)
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted October 23, 2005 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(Thank you, dear... I dun think you're the only one....)
"Wolf warned me that this might be like trying to herd cats.... "
Whats with the patronising remarks? Just because you created the thread does not give you the right to dictate every word that is spoken in it. Theres keeping a thread on track and there is ruling with an ironfist.
Why should people write in your thread when you have so little regard for what they say?
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 25, 2005 06:51 PM |
|
|
GRRRRR...
Well, I was just not going to respond to this in order not to feed its thread-killing effect, but you guys are proving my point since apparently the thread is effectively killed anyways.
First, Arachnid, I meant to neither patronize nor condescend. In case you haven't noticed, I have more questions than answers on this subject and clearly count as one of the confused individuals to whom I was referring in my response to Consis.
Consis, sorry if you took my statement otherwise.
Second, ANY TIME anyone begins a discussion about the meaning and structure of the Second Amendment it is like "herding cats." NOBODY is in agreement anywhere and this is particularly true in the United States. This is especially true when Europeans get into the mix.
Now let me be perfectly clear why I think that is. This does NOT mean I think they are too stupid to focus on the originally stated issues I set forth here, nor does it mean anything else that is necessarily negative. If you ask me the fact that Europeans have figured out a way to evolve sociologically beyond widespread possession of guns counts in their favor. But this is a very emotional issue for many people, and because of aforesaid advancment, Europeans are left baffled over the fact that we Americans DO remain preoccupied by such an issue. The preoccupation remains by virtue of the fact that the right in question was inshrined in our Constitution and remains imbedded in our culture.
Which hopefully returns us to the general vicinity of the topic at issue here:
Quote:
(Taken from the link: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&int=-1)
Map & Graph: Crime: Murders with firearms (per capita)
Definition: Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1000 population.
Amount
1. South Africa 0.71 per 1000 people
2. Colombia 0.50 per 1000 people
3. Thailand 0.31 per 1000 people
4. Zimbabwe 0.04 per 1000 people
5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
6. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people
7. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people
8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people
10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people
11. Slovakia 0.02 per 1000 people
12. Czech Republic 0.02 per 1000 people
13. Estonia 0.01 per 1000 people
14. Latvia 0.01 per 1000 people
15. Macedonia 0.01 per 1000 people
16. Bulgaria 0.00 per 1000 people
17. Portugal 0.00 per 1000 people
18. Slovenia 0.00 per 1000 people
19. Switzerland 0.00 per 1000 people
20. Canada 0.00 per 1000 people
21. Germany 0.00 per 1000 people
22. Moldova 0.00 per 1000 people
23. Hungary 0.00 per 1000 people
24. Poland 0.00 per 1000 people
25. Ukraine 0.00 per 1000 people
26. Ireland 0.00 per 1000 people
27. Australia 0.00 per 1000 people
28. Denmark 0.00 per 1000 people
29. Spain 0.00 per 1000 people
30. Azerbaijan 0.00 per 1000 people
31. New Zealand 0.00 per 1000 people
32. United Kingdom 0.00 per 1000 people
Now I don't know exactly what this data illustrates, except perhaps the fact that gun crimes in the United States are not quite as rampant as they are frequently billed as being. Can we please now look to what we should do about applying the Second Amendment to modern-day realities?
As has been stated,
1) It is a political impossibility to amend or repeal the Second Amendment at the present time. So we're stuck with it.
2) In light of the fact that we're stuck with it,how should it be applied?
There are competing canons of construction at work here. One says that the trier must look to the original intent of the law, which we can glean much from by looking at the quotes by the Founders set forth above. This is particularly true of the Constitution and is another hot-button issue currently at work in the United States. The "strict constructionist" judiciary view held by most conservatives demands adherence to the letter of the Constitution and denies that it is a "living document."
But another canon says that the law should be construed to render a practical, sensible real-life effect. Those in the judiciary who do hold that the Constitution is a "living document" typically hold this attitude with respect to the application of laws, even including the Constitution. Which would imply that the judiciary can interpret the Founder's original intent as applying to circumstances which no longer exist, rendering a strict interpretation based on that intent no longer sensible and practical and opening the door for gun regulation.
But here's the trick. Given the culturally-imbedded resolve the majority of Americans cling to respecting their right to bear arms, and the equal resolve to do the same among America's crime element, how does one regulate the availability (and therefore the possession) of weapons in the United States without creating a huge black market making weapons available only to those who are willing to break the law to get them?
The practical reality is, the response of any given market depends on the desires of the consumers. For many in the U.S., both criminals and upstanding citizens alike, there is perhaps no more coveted item in the U.S. than a gun. When a clean market is removed which provides a highly coveted item, a black market will take its place. Al Capone illustrated this quite effectively during Prohibition. Not only would guns remain available to those who are willing to break the law, a whole new criminal element would flourish in the establishment and maintenance of the black market for guns. (A 'la Capone.)
And a criminal with a gun in his hands will be much emboldened by the extreme unlikelihood that the homeowner whose house he is about to break into also possess a weapon with which to protect himself. These are the hard cold facts.
Several of you have suggested that gun regulation is the answer, but have not answered my questions concerning the practical effects of regulation. I invite further discussion about this conundrum.
Shiva -- did you see my response above?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2005 01:40 AM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 25 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Shiva --
I understand your point, but you speak as though the illicit use of firearms is a recent phenomenon. Guns have been used for ill purposes all along, it's just that the ill purposes have changed over the years. American society has had some form of individual combat going on all along. (Remember Aaron Burr?)
So while I agree that the Second Amendment was never intended to protect such activity, what is the impact of this argument on the intent and application of the Second Amendment to the present day?
I dont think its recent at all. However, one shot pistols
and muskets are much different from automatic weapons,
which give an individual great destructive capacity.
People having access to such weapons is whole different
thing.
By the way, you missed Brazil in your list, where they
just had a referendum about gun control. The gun lobby
put on a blitz at the end to convince people to vote
against control, playing on the fear of everybody. The
police are apparently corrupt and incompetent there.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted September 12, 2006 01:33 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 01:34, 12 Sep 2006.
|
An Epiphany?
This past weekend I was privy to discover that the second amendment was actually being used by the South as an excuse to secede from the Union. Apparently many people had interpreted it to mean that the individual states had the right to bear arms against a federal government. Among no small amount of southern fried egregiousness I, for one, am content with their defeat.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted September 12, 2006 09:01 PM |
|
|
Well well! Hello there Consis.
I note that my last post in this thread was just days before I returned to work last year, which explains why I dropped it. I'm home sick today and so for the first time in a while I'm around to participate briefly.
Now for some questions about the most recent posts.
Consis, so what do you think this implies with respect to the current interpretation of the Second Amendment?
Shiva, If you will note, the list from which Brazil was excluded was not mine. I got the data -- and the list itself -- directly from the link I posted directly above it. So, do you know what their most current data is and can you please post it if you're still around?
Arachnid, you never responded to my explanation in response to your allegations of my alleged "condescention." Since the nature of your complaint was that I was "ruling the content fo the thread with an iron fist," I will again invite you to respond with your own thoughts instead of stopping at such complaints. If you have something relevant to say about what to do about this conundrum, by all means please share it.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted September 15, 2006 03:14 PM |
|
|
What I believe It To Mean?
Matters not. One of the great unanswered questions of the civil war that became answered in the victory over the South was this very subject. The north won, ergo the second amendment has since been ajudicated by the North's interpretation. They believed it was meant to be seen strictly in regard to state-run militias. The key word being "militia".
In using the North's 'militia-interpretation' of the second amendment, the Southern states would find it to be a great source of foundation upon which to arrest KKK groups going about dissarming black militias. These African Americans were funded, supplied, and otherwise wholly supported by the state yet still faced small regiments, loyal to the KKK philosophy, for dissarmament.
Professor Simon Schama loves to profess that the single most important word in the Declaration of Independence is "When":
WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume amonge the powers of the Earth, the seperate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation.
'When' mind you . . . not 'if' but 'when' . . .It almost seems as though it is to be expected; the seperation of people and their 'political bands'. 'In the Course of human Events' . . . hmm
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted September 16, 2006 06:33 PM |
|
|
Interesting.
As an aside from the theme of this thread, which I assume is alright since it's mine and has been all but dead for over a year, I suggest anyone viewing this thread to read the above passage with the current state of affairs in Iraq in mind...
From the Shiia point of view...
From the Sunni point of view...
And then from the Kurdish point of view.
Thanks for sharing, Consis.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted September 16, 2006 08:02 PM |
|
|
Just a note --
I inadvertently referred to Consis' quote ae "the Preamble to the Constitution." I just thought that, since in my embarrassment I amended the post, I should acknowledge the error. That's not the first time I've done that.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
|
|
