Federal Appeals Court Overturns DC Handgun Ban

[WildCat]

Story (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/16872157.htm):

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

Very interesting, a federal appeals court actually discovered the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution! Decision will be appealed to the full court, and probably to the SCOTUS after that. It would be nice to see the high court actually address this issue for once, we'll see. Chicago has a similar handgun ban.

Interestingly, the dissenting judge didn't really disagree about the militia issue, but said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply because DC isn't a state. Does this judge believe the rest of the Constitution shouldn't apply to DC as well?

[DanishDynamite]

Story (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/16872157.htm):


Very interesting, a federal appeals court actually discovered the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution! Decision will be appealed to the full court, and probably to the SCOTUS after that. It would be nice to see the high court actually address this issue for once, we'll see. Chicago has a similar handgun ban.

Interestingly, the dissenting judge didn't really disagree about the militia issue, but said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply because DC isn't a state. Does this judge believe the rest of the Constitution shouldn't apply to DC as well?
How wonderful. Perhaps the US will finally agree on what their Constitution actually means. After 300 years, its about time.

[Lonewulf]

Years from now, at the end of the world, people will look back at their shattered apocalyptic society and blame this decision.

...Either that, or we'll get non-Americans making fun of Americans (Woops, Danish just beat me to it!), and probably another Gun Control argument that goes nowhere.

[shecky]

Interestingly, the dissenting judge didn't really disagree about the militia issue, but said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply because DC isn't a state. Does this judge believe the rest of the Constitution shouldn't apply to DC as well?


Not being a state, DC does enjoy a certain weird limbo on a number of issues. However, it's good to see the courts draw a line on the extent of restrictions that are allowed under the Constitution.

[NoZed Avenger]

How wonderful. Perhaps the US will finally agree on what their Constitution actually means. After 300 years, its about time.


At least we can do math.

[Molinaro]

.. , and probably another Gun Control argument that goes nowhere.

I'm in! :D

Guns are bad.

Have we covered that angle yet?

[Lonewulf]

I'm in! :D

Guns are bad.

Have we covered that angle yet?

No. No we have not. You tread new grounds, young man.

TOTALLY not heard that before.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Very interesting, a federal appeals court actually discovered the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution!

Oh please. From what I've seen over the years the courts have been looking at the entire 2nd Amendment, not just the right to bear clause. I hear the same thing from accomodationists who seem to only think the religion part of the 1st Amendment consists solely of the free exercise clause....

Decision will be appealed to the full court, and probably to the SCOTUS after that. It would be nice to see the high court actually address this issue for once, we'll see. Chicago has a similar handgun ban.

...and I agree completely that this makes for a very interesting case. I can't wait to see how the Supreme Court rules on it and more importantly, on what basis. I think I heard on the radio that it's been 70 years since there's been a right to bear case decided using the 2nd Amendment as it's basis. Anyone more familiar previous decisions than I am with the lack of them?

[WildCat]

Oh please. From what I've seen over the years the courts have been looking at the entire 2nd Amendment, not just the right to bear clause.
If by "looking at the entire 2nd Amendment" you mean define it so narrowly it may as well not exist you're right.

[casebro]

70 years ago? That is probably the issue of sub machine guns and sawed off shotguns. The case hinged on the thought that 'militia weapons' are what are used by individual soldiers. They used WWI trenches as the back drop. Through some snafu, the defendants didn't show up for the SCOTUS hearing. So the private ownership of Class 3 weapons (machine guns, sawed of shotguns, shotgun pistols, grenades) was regulated- not banned. 42 states still have no laws against MG's, but you do need to pay a $300 licensing fee to the fed BATF.

I'm sure I'm slightly garbled here, but I think I have the gist of it.

[Mephisto]

I guess they figured, "We may as well . . . "

Pennsylvania Leads Nation in Per Capita Rate of Black Homicide Victimization

Washington, DC—Pennsylvania leads the nation in the rate of black homicide victimization according to a new analysis of unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).

For homicides in which the weapon used could be identified, 86 percent of victims (335 out of 389) were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 81 percent (273 victims) were killed with handguns. There were 48 victims killed with firearms, type not stated. There were 25 victims killed with knives or other cutting instruments, 7 victims killed by bodily force, and 9 victims killed by a blunt object.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0701homicide.htm

It's pretty apparent that the ban on handguns in D.C. wasn't working. May as well let people own handguns legally. So much for "gun-control works."

[WildCat]

I guess they figured, "We may as well . . . "



It's pretty apparent that the ban on handguns in D.C. wasn't working. May as well let people own handguns legally. So much for "gun-control works."
Except for the dateline, that article doesn't mention DC at all...

[Mephisto]

Except for the dateline, that article doesn't mention DC at all...

OOPS! Thanks for catching that, WildCat. I guess I was a little too quick with the click . . . DOH!

I meant this one:

Since September 24, 1976, D.C. residents have lived under the nation's most restrictive gun laws: Police enforce a citywide handgun ban, and local statutes require residents to keep long guns disassembled, unloaded and locked up. The law even forbids target shooting.

D.C.'s gun-control regime has aroused surprisingly little controversy until recently. Had the law worked, the relative lack of controversy wouldn't surprise anyone. But, if one looks at the data, it is clear that the law hasn't done anything to reduce violence. Over the last five years, the District, never far out of the running, had in three of those years the highest murder rate among cities over 500,000 people. The other two years the city ranked second and third. It seems clear that D.C. residents need more protection then they are receiving.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22768/pub_detail.asp


Sorry about that. [/BRAINFART]

[WildCat]

I meant this one:




Sorry about that. [/BRAINFART]
:D

[Cleon]

Story (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/16872157.htm):


Very interesting, a federal appeals court actually discovered the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution!


:yahoo:yahoo:yahoo

[a_unique_person]

So, if I bump this in a year, will the crime rate be up or down? Taking bets.

[Mephisto]

So, if I bump this in a year, will the crime rate be up or down? Taking bets.

It depends on what kind of crime you're talking about. Since most D.C. resident won't be able to carry a gun in public, I don't think that armed robbery will be affected. However, I'm willing to bet that home invasion type crimes will definitely be lower.

Even idiotic criminals will think twice about invading a home where they suspect a gun lives. ;) Who knows, maybe even plastering NRA stickers all over the windows could have the same effect?

[WildCat]

So, if I bump this in a year, will the crime rate be up or down? Taking bets.
This has what to do w/ the OP? Does interpretation of the 2nd Amendment depend on crime rates?

[UnrepentantSinner]

If by "looking at the entire 2nd Amendment" you mean define it so narrowly it may as well not exist you're right.

I've owned a Mossberg 500.
I've owned a MAC-9.
I've owned a Russian Mauser.
I've owned a Norinco AK-47 in 5.56 with a bayonet lug and a folding stock.
I've owned a MAK-90 with a 75 round drum magazine.
My grandfather had a Colt .45 and '08 Springfield that of all the children and grandchildren only I expressed an interest in owning or firing but couldn't because of Massachusetts stringent gun laws.

Please don't lecture me, especially with me living in Texas where I can get pretty much what I want when I want about the idological conflict between the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment since Miller (back in the Dust Bowl days) and interpretations of city and state laws within the context of Miller and the 2nd Amendment since then.

I fully agree with the decision in this case that municipal and state laws that restrict firearm ownership to the point where the individual cannot legally own or purchase a firearm are unconstitutional (even though I agree with the last 70 years of precidence that militia clause supercedes the bear clause*). It's one thing to restrict individual ownership of, say, a full auto SAW**, it's another to restrict people from having firearms to protect themselves or hunt.

I'm just curious as to how this decision will play out in the Supreme Court when it comes to how the full text of the 2nd Amendment will be interpreted since it hasn't been interpreted to place the emphasis on the bear clause over the militia clause - at least as I see the history of it - in at least 70 years.

* yes dammit, I wanted to type Bear Claws, but I haven't had breakfast yet
** And yes dammit, if I had the money I would purchase a Steyr AUG not only because they are so cool, but because they're the only bullpup I'm aware of that is manufactured with a left handed eject.

[WildCat]

Please don't lecture me, especially with me living in Texas where I can get pretty much what I want when I want about the idological conflict between the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment since Miller (back in the Dust Bowl days) and interpretations of city and state laws within the context of Miller and the 2nd Amendment since then.
I don't believe I was lecturing you, just responding to your rather snippy "oh please" comment, since in my area (Chicago) handgun bans by Chicago and several suburbs have been challenged and the courts act as if the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist.

[Roadtoad]

I don't think this will have much of an effect on crime rates. It might lower some, and others might go up, but the full effect will be a wash. You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.

Ultimately, the only way you'll get the crime rate down is to start enforcing laws that respect the rights of individuals. Take a long hard look at the courts and how they've ruled over the past century, and you try and tell me that's been going on. (And, no, Roe V. Wade does not qualify, for reasons enumerated by Justice Ginsberg.)

[a_unique_person]

This has what to do w/ the OP? Does interpretation of the 2nd Amendment depend on crime rates?

I'm looking at the claimed benefits of the 2nd amendment. Given that the militia hasn't been needed for 200 years or so, just what benefit does it give the USA? The only one that I have read here is the crime rate.

[a_unique_person]

I don't think this will have much of an effect on crime rates. It might lower some, and others might go up, but the full effect will be a wash. You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.

Ultimately, the only way you'll get the crime rate down is to start enforcing laws that respect the rights of individuals. Take a long hard look at the courts and how they've ruled over the past century, and you try and tell me that's been going on. (And, no, Roe V. Wade does not qualify, for reasons enumerated by Justice Ginsberg.)

IIRC, the USA has an imprisonment rate that is unprecedented in the 'western' societies. That doesn't seem to have helped the crime rate, either.

Australia was founded with convicts, but it's current crime rate is lower than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World

Gun control and severe punishment for criminals is not, apparently, the answer.

[patchbunny]

Anyone have any comment on this from Judge Karen Henderson, in her dissent?

From here (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070309/D8NORBRG1.html)
In 2004, a lower-court judge had told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state (emphasis added).

If this is indeed accurate (I've not seen the actual dissent to see if it's somehow out of context), but would her argument also mean the 1st Amendment (among others) doesn't apply to DC residents as it's not a state? Seems an odd stance to take.

[WildCat]

Australia was founded with convicts, but it's current crime rate is lower than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World.
Your link doesn't show that. It just says that total crime is more in the US, not the crime rate. Of course a nation w/ 300 million people is going to have more crime than much smaller countries. And according to your link, Australia leads the world in burglary rates, Canada in rape, and England in robbery rates.

[a_unique_person]

I can believe that. Burglary is a problem. The crims make sure the place is empty, and rob it. We had a recent problem in our area with cars in the street being robbed. No handguns. What is it with that? Surely if we have no handguns, they'd just attack is with impunity.

[Alt+F4]

Anyone have any comment on this from Judge Karen Henderson, in her dissent?

The name of the case is Parker v. the District of Columbia but I couldn't find the complete decision online. Perhaps someone who has access to Lexus/Nexus or the like could provide more info.

[CFLarsen]

You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.

I'd like to hear more about that.

When did this slide begin? And why?

[WildCat]

At any rate, this is getting off-topic (surprise surprise). I'd like to see more discussion of the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which is what the court based its decision on.

The name of the case is Parker v. the District of Columbia but I couldn't find the complete decision online. Perhaps someone who has access to Lexus/Nexus or the like could provide more info.
Yes, please!

[Darat]

This has what to do w/ the OP? Does interpretation of the 2nd Amendment depend on crime rates?

This reads as if you are saying you are more concerned about "words" then "actions", in other words no matter the affect (effect?) something has does not matter as long as it does not contradict something written what 200 years ago?

[Darat]

I don't think this will have much of an effect on crime rates. It might lower some, and others might go up, but the full effect will be a wash. You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.

Ultimately, the only way you'll get the crime rate down is to start enforcing laws that respect the rights of individuals. Take a long hard look at the courts and how they've ruled over the past century, and you try and tell me that's been going on. (And, no, Roe V. Wade does not qualify, for reasons enumerated by Justice Ginsberg.)

I agree with your first paragraph but disagree at least slightly with your second. In my opinion crime rates are not about the police and court enforcement but society itself and what overall people are willing to tolerate. This is why there is no correlation between private firearm ownership and crime rates (apart from the simple "no guns would mean no crimes committed with guns).

[HarryKeogh]

You only have lower crime rates when you teach people to respect themselves, and to respect the rights of others. In this country, we don't do that anymore.

By your logic apparently we are teaching people to respect themselves and to respect the rights of others since crime rates have been going down.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Source (http://www.answers.com/topic/crime-in-the-united-states)

The year 2005 was overall the safest year in over twenty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its record high point in 1991 and 2005

[CFLarsen]

"Safe", compared to what?

Denmark's crime rate has also decreased. We have a historic low murder rate.

[Darat]

"Safe", compared to what?

To 20 years ago.

[CFLarsen]

To 20 years ago.

Would you consider the US crime rate low?

[Darat]

Would you consider the US crime rate low?

Irrelevant question.

[CFLarsen]

Irrelevant question.

Huh?

I asked you a question. Do you find the question irrelevant to the point you are making?

[HarryKeogh]

To 20 years ago.


Thank you, Darat. I thought the snippet I posted made it clear that it was comparing crime levels from different points in time and not comparing crime levels between the USA and Denmark.

[CFLarsen]

Thank you, Darat. I thought the snippet I posted made it clear that it was comparing crime levels from different points in time and not comparing crime levels between the USA and Denmark.

I didn't say it was the latter.

Would you consider the US crime rate low, compared to other comparable countries?

[HarryKeogh]

Would you consider the US crime rate low, compared to other comparable countries?

No.

Did someone assert something to the contrary in this thread that makes you ask that question?

[CFLarsen]

No.

Did someone assert something to the contrary in this thread that makes you ask that question?

No.

Do they have to, in order for someone to ask that question?

[WildCat]

This reads as if you are saying you are more concerned about "words" then "actions", in other words no matter the affect (effect?) something has does not matter as long as it does not contradict something written what 200 years ago?
The "actions" are for the legislature and the people to decide, not the courts. The courts are there to interpret what was written, and if you read the link in the OP you'd see that the judges took the intent of the authors of the 2nd Amendment into consideration when determining its meaning.

If the Congress and the people decide they no longer like the 2nd Amendment as written there are ways to adress that. They can repeal the 2nd Amendment if they wish.

[HarryKeogh]

No.

Do they have to, in order for someone to ask that question?

Nope. It just seemed odd to throw it out there for no reason.

Hey Wildcat, do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream?

[CFLarsen]

Nope. It just seemed odd to throw it out there for no reason.

Why? Comparisons between countries are done all the time.

[ponderingturtle]

I fully agree with the decision in this case that municipal and state laws that restrict firearm ownership to the point where the individual cannot legally own or purchase a firearm are unconstitutional (even though I agree with the last 70 years of precidence that militia clause supercedes the bear clause*). It's one thing to restrict individual ownership of, say, a full auto SAW**, it's another to restrict people from having firearms to protect themselves or hunt.


The whole point is what are you trying to protect youself against? The arguements about keeping america free because of the posibility of armed revolt would be a good arguement for RPG's and SAM's being legal.

[Schneibster]

At any rate, this is getting off-topic (surprise surprise). I'd like to see more discussion of the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which is what the court based its decision on.You know, there is a balance here that is very important.

The first part of it is, guns are dangerous. Actuarially speaking, if you own a gun you are much more likely to be shot. The statistics that say so are essentially incontestable. While there are many good ways to mitigate this risk, there is no way to eliminate it. One mistake is all that is necessary.

Now, I've said that elsewhere; and it makes some think that I'm against gun ownership. I'm not. What I'm against is the possession of a dangerous instrument without either proper supervision by someone trained to use it, or checking to see that the possessor is trained in its use, and capable of using it responsibly. We don't allow people to operate motor vehicles without that; why do we allow them to operate guns without it?

I have a very close friend who is a long-time gun owner and user. He and I have been to the range. Several years ago, he married; the guns are now inaccessible. They are stored where they cannot be gotten at by his children; he has essentially given them up until his children are grown. He hasn't sold them; but they are under lock and key, and he doesn't take them out. He has said he will not until his children are not at risk.

This is a responsible decision. He had to make a choice: did he value his freedom with respect to firearms more, or his responsibility for the safety of his children, with all the joys that fatherhood can bring? His decision was clear. I am certain it was not one he made alone, or quickly.

The problem is not guns themselves; it is people who are irresponsible with them. They are too easy to get. We have laws in the US that restrict gun ownership; then again, we have laws in the US that restrict the right to operate a motor vehicle. If we could strike a balance like that with respect to cars on guns, I for one would be more than satisfied with that. Note that this is neither the position of the NRA, nor the position of authoritarian left-wingers. It's a reasonable compromise; but neither of these groups is satisfied with that. This is typical of both groups.

But that's not what the right to bear is about.

The right to bear has a simple underlying reason; the right to bear is the right to overthrow the government by violence, if it becomes necessary. Baldly stated, that's what it's there for. Nothing else. The laws put and keep the people in power in power; the people in power write the laws. To prevent them from abusing their power to write laws that are good for them but bad for us, a check-and-balance system exists. The final check, the final balancing power, is the right to bear. That's what it's FOR. There's no question about it. It has nothing to do with defending the country against outsiders, although that is something that an armed populace can also do. It is for one simple reason: to preserve our right to overthrow our government by force if it becomes a tyranny. Never, ever forget it.

The US Courts will never acknowledge this directly; it's too scary, both to the people in power, and to the general population who don't like to think about bloody insurrection.

How quickly we forget.

The right of the people to do this, their ultimate check on tyranny, their ultimate power, is clear; but it is also not to be undertaken for light cause. Frankly, we get the right to vote on a regular basis; we vote for our President every four years, for our Senators every six, and more often for local representatives and laws. We can write to our representatives, and they employ staffs to read our thoughts. Believe me, if you bother to write, they will hear about it; if not your thoughts alone, certainly the aggregate of yours and your fellow writers. They want to know what you want done; they want to keep you happy, so you vote for them next time. So we have this much easier and less violent check on their power. But never, ever forget what it's there for, and what that implies about what YOU must be prepared to do, if it comes to that.

[HarryKeogh]

Why? Comparisons between countries are done all the time.

Sure. I just find it odd that you would ask me that question when it wasn't being discussed or argued at all and I didn't post anything to prompt it. Is there anyone else in this thread besides me and Darat that you would like to ask that question?

[CFLarsen]

Sure. I just find it odd that you would ask me that question when it wasn't being discussed or argued at all and I didn't post anything to prompt it. Is there anyone else in this thread besides me and Darat that you would like to ask that question?

No need to feel singled out. Anyone can jump in at any time. That's the charm about public discussion fora.

Why do you think that Americans respect themselves and respect the rights of others less than other comparable nationalities?

[shecky]

But that's not what the right to bear is about.

The right to bear has a simple underlying reason; the right to bear is the right to overthrow the government by violence, if it becomes necessary.


I'm not really convinced that this is THE reason, or even one, for the existence of the 2nd Amendment. Which I think is one of the fundamental problems with it. That is, it's ambiguity. Both sides of the issue are able to argue, often reasonably, IMO, that the 2nd Amendment means what they want it to mean.

[HarryKeogh]

No need to feel singled out. Anyone can jump in at any time. That's the charm about public discussion fora.

Why do you think that Americans respect themselves and respect the rights of others less than other comparable nationalities?

I don't know, Claus. What do you think? I'll check your answer tomorrow morning as unfortunately I can't spend my Saturday night in front of the computer and I'm meeting up with friends in the city.

Actually, you may want to start it in a new thread as your irrelevant questions (in regards to the OP) are seriously derailing this thread!

Looking forward to hearing your opinion!

[Darat]

Huh?

I asked you a question. Do you find the question irrelevant to the point you are making?

Yes since I wasn't making any point.

[Schneibster]

I'm not really convinced that this is THE reason, or even one, for the existence of the 2nd Amendment. Which I think is one of the fundamental problems with it. That is, it's ambiguity. Both sides of the issue are able to argue, often reasonably, IMO, that the 2nd Amendment means what they want it to mean.Jefferson makes it clear elsewhere that this was why he wanted it in. So does Franklin. Many of the others were against that interpretation; I'd be willing to bet they insisted on the militia clause. People in power are loathe to give it up. It's addictive. That's why it's written the way it is. But who can question the thrust of these two quotes:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots... and of tyrants. " -Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

These are not ambiguous quotes. That there were men in power who did not agree is axiomatic; to this day, there are arguments over safety and liberty. Abortion is one; gun ownership is another. But if we ignore what those men said, we risk our freedom. To misquote Santayana yet again, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Those men knew the prices their forefathers had paid for their freedom, and the ways they had been taken advantage of. One of the points I think many people ignore about the founding of the US was where the founders came from and why. We talk about the "Pilgrims," but how many among US Citizens realize that these people were refugees from the intolerance that was the backlash against the Protectorate and the Puritans after the Restoration of Charles II?

The English Civil War was far more prominent in the history of the day than it is today; most US Citizens don't even have a serious idea who Oliver Cromwell was, but you'd better believe our founding fathers did. It had happened only a bit over 100 years before, and most of the losing side had left for America. You'd better believe that they hadn't forgotten it. There is an argument to be made that King George's Intolerable Acts were accepted by the British Subjects in Britain, or at any rate their Parliament, because of the perception that the colonial subjects were rebels against the Crown; there is also an argument to be made that they were looking for an excuse to separate themselves from that same Crown. I have often thought that the English Civil War had far more effect upon the American Revolution than is commonly acknowledged.

In any case, these were people who believed in the right of the populace to rise against a government that did not represent their interests, and they had done so, and it was the intent of at least a majority of the framers that this right should be retained in perpetuity, or that language would not be in there.

[CFLarsen]

I'm not really convinced that this is THE reason, or even one, for the existence of the 2nd Amendment. Which I think is one of the fundamental problems with it. That is, it's ambiguity. Both sides of the issue are able to argue, often reasonably, IMO, that the 2nd Amendment means what they want it to mean.

If it is so ambiguous - and nobody seems to be able to reach a clear interpretation of it, even after over 200 years - why not change it, so it is crystal clear what is meant?

Why keep something that is so vital, yet is continuously a cause for so much controversy?

Is there as much controversy and debate about any other part of the American constitution?

I don't know, Claus. What do you think? I'll check your answer tomorrow morning as unfortunately I can't spend my Saturday night in front of the computer and I'm meeting up with friends in the city.

Actually, you may want to start it in a new thread as your irrelevant questions (in regards to the OP) are seriously derailing this thread!

Looking forward to hearing your opinion!

I don't know either. That's why I am asking the very people who are the most likely to know: Americans.

But, if they don't know either, how can you call that "irrelevant"? Is it "irrelevant" because you have no answers?

[Schneibster]

If it is so ambiguous - and nobody seems to be able to reach a clear interpretation of it, even after over 200 years - why not change it, so it is crystal clear what is meant?Because to change it, we would either have to acknowledge openly that the ultimate check and balance against the powerful is the right of insurrection, which scares the s%&t out of half the population, or establish organized militias overseen by the government and not permit others to have guns, which scares the s&%t out of the other half. Neither group of framers was happy with the agenda of the other; one half wanted to just establish a new monarchy (the most prominent Federalist, Hamilton, wanted to elect a monarch for life), the other half wanted as little government as they could get away with. One half wanted everybody to have guns so they couldn't be messed with, the other half wanted to have an army without having to pay as much for it. What we got was the compromise between those two views. And the controversy continues to this day.

Why keep something that is so vital, yet is continuously a cause for so much controversy?Because neither half will budge.

Is there as much controversy and debate about any other part of the American constitution?First, America has no constitution. The US has a Constitution. I believe there are a few (<-sarcasm, for the impaired) other countries on the North and South American continents that do, too. You might want to keep that in mind.

Second, other than that quibble, I believe you are approximately correct in terms of public argument; however, I have to point out that the right of the people to be secure in their possessions, homes, persons, and freedoms has been more often violated by the US government than any other right in the Bill of Rights. Every single time, the justification is "public safety." Please read the Franklin quote I provided.

I don't know either. That's why I am asking the very people who are the most likely to know: Americans.It's a reasonable question. I hope you have some answers.

But, if they don't know either, how can you call that "irrelevant"? Is it "irrelevant" because you have no answers?Since I have provided them, this is now irrelevant. Of course, they are just my opinion; but I'm sure you'll find there are many who share them, and many who are far more vocal who occupy one or the other side of the gun debate.

[shecky]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots... and of tyrants. " -Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

These are not ambiguous quotes.

You're right. Those aren't ambiguous quites. However, they're not in the Constitution.

If it is so ambiguous - and nobody seems to be able to reach a clear interpretation of it, even after over 200 years - why not change it, so it is crystal clear what is meant?

Why keep something that is so vital, yet is continuously a cause for so much controversy?

Is there as much controversy and debate about any other part of the American constitution?


Personally, I'd like to see it clarified even simplified. However, that's much easier said than done. Various factions line up to determine how it would be clarified. That is exactly what is happening now, in the courts. With such little hope that it can be clarified to everyone's satisfaction, there's little reason to believe it can be simplified to everyone's satisfaction.

[skeptifem]

If it is so ambiguous - and nobody seems to be able to reach a clear interpretation of it, even after over 200 years - why not change it, so it is crystal clear what is meant?

why would you want to change something for clarity when the original meaning is what is being debated? That is simply a foolish idea. Especially when the constitution effects every citizen in the united states- there is a reason its hard to change.

Why keep something that is so vital, yet is continuously a cause for so much controversy?

Generating controversy is never a good reason to scrap something relevant to the government and the rights of citizens.

Is there as much controversy and debate about any other part of the American constitution?

wether or not the first amendment is applicable to certain actions is a matter of controversy almost constantly.

[Schneibster]

You're right. Those aren't ambiguous quites. However, they're not in the Constitution.I never said they were. They are indicative of the thinking of two of the most prominent people who wrote it. Which was my point.

Personally, I'd like to see it clarified even simplified. However, that's much easier said than done. Various factions line up to determine how it would be clarified. That is exactly what is happening now, in the courts. With such little hope that it can be clarified to everyone's satisfaction, there's little reason to believe it can be simplified to everyone's satisfaction.I completely agree; however, I don't see this as a defect. I think its very ambiguity makes it certain that there will never be a time when a tyrant is complacent in tyranny over the US. And that is a Good Thing. Here's another quote:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -Wendell Phillips; the quote is sometimes attributed to Jefferson, but no proof exists that he wrote it.

On the other hand, the certain restraint provided by the militia clause prevents it from being an all-out free-for-all. This debate should not, I think, ever be decided. Balance. Checks and balances. That's how this country's government was designed. It's a good design; we meddle with it at peril of our freedom, if not our lives.

[WildCat]

Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html) is a Washington Post article on the ruling, has a bit more info on the dissenting opinion:
In her dissent, Henderson wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms relates to those Militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States." She also said that because the District is not a state, the Second Amendment does not apply.
I guess this makes sense, if you define the militia in that way. But why you would need a constitutional amendment (in the Bill of Rights no less) guaranteeing the right of the military to be armed is perplexing to me.

[Luke T.]

Why? Comparisons between countries are done all the time.

And comparisons between different types of fruit are done all the time, too.

[Luke T.]

It depends on what kind of crime you're talking about. Since most D.C. resident won't be able to carry a gun in public, I don't think that armed robbery will be affected. However, I'm willing to bet that home invasion type crimes will definitely be lower.

Even idiotic criminals will think twice about invading a home where they suspect a gun lives. ;) Who knows, maybe even plastering NRA stickers all over the windows could have the same effect?

"Ah, NRA stickers. Good place to rob if we want some guns. Make a note." :)

[Lonewulf]

Now, I've said that elsewhere; and it makes some think that I'm against gun ownership. I'm not. What I'm against is the possession of a dangerous instrument without either proper supervision by someone trained to use it, or checking to see that the possessor is trained in its use, and capable of using it responsibly. We don't allow people to operate motor vehicles without that; why do we allow them to operate guns without it?

Agreed.

I'd be making arguments, but Gun Control debates bore me, especially with this crowd. But I find your position to be very reasonable, and that level of restriction I'm okay with.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't believe I was lecturing you, just responding to your rather snippy "oh please" comment, since in my area (Chicago) handgun bans by Chicago and several suburbs have been challenged and the courts act as if the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist.

Sorry if I came across as snippy, but I just vehemently disagree with your conclusion that courts agreeing with Miller decision that the regulated clause supercedes the bear clause is somehow "acting as if the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist."

Like I said (or alluded), I would like to see the bear clause be the law of the entire land - with some regulation (don't have problems with Class 3 licenses, etc.) - but I would really like to see it argued on the merits of the intent of the Framers regarding the bear clause of the 2nd Amendment rather than some of the B.S. NRA arguments I've seen about the milita being comprised of every white male over 18 or whatever so as to give it a more concrete legal basis.

And again, my perspective on this ruling and the judiciary's interpretation of the bear clause is skewed because of where I live. I could literally sign off right now, and have a long gun in less than an hour, or handgun in whatever the Brady Law requires plus the time it takes my credit card to run through the POS modem.

[Yjacket]

Back up thread someone asked if there were a link to the full decision. If someone has posted such a link I apologize for duplicating it.

Court decision here. (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf)

[Yjacket]

Originally posted by Schneibster - What I'm against is the possession of a dangerous instrument without either proper supervision by someone trained to use it, or checking to see that the possessor is trained in its use, and capable of using it responsibly. We don't allow people to operate motor vehicles without that; why do we allow them to operate guns without it?
<snip>
We have laws in the US that restrict gun ownership; then again, we have laws in the US that restrict the right to operate a motor vehicle. If we could strike a balance like that with respect to cars on guns, I for one would be more than satisfied with that.

I sort of wish that people would quit trying to compare firearms and automobiles.

When you say you are in favor of training the owner of firearms like the owner of a car you are addressing only the issue of accidents, not criminal use. Accidental firearm fatalities are down well below 800 incidents per year now among all age groups and all causes of these accidents. Granted, this can be improved upon. However since the record of this type of incident has shown a century long decrease in the number of accidental fatalities in spite of the ownership pool and the number of firearms steadily increasing, I doubt that such legislative action would show any significant improvement. To verify my number of less than 800 CLICK HERE AND THEN CLICK THE NECESSARY ITEMS (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html) for the result in 2002 of 762 accidental firearm fatalities.

Comparing autos to cars is sort of frustrating because there are few commercially available commodities that are as controlled as firearms. Automobiles certainly are not, refer to the 1968 GCA. Click here (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2003) to visit a site where a spread sheet comparison has been prepared. Granted this site is operated by a pro-firearm ownership group but I suspect that you will find it difficult to fault their spreadsheet, and if you do find error I would appreciate knowing it. While I do not see it on the spreadsheet there is one other item that should be considered - as a law-abiding citizen I must have government (FBI) approval to purchase a new firearm but I need no such approval to purchase a new automobile.

[WildCat]

Sorry if I came across as snippy, but I just vehemently disagree with your conclusion that courts agreeing with Miller decision that the regulated clause supercedes the bear clause is somehow "acting as if the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist."
When "regulated" is interpreted as "can be prohibited" then I think the 2nd Amendment may as well no longer exist.

[UnrepentantSinner]

When "regulated" is interpreted as "can be prohibited" then I think the 2nd Amendment may as well no longer exist.

Is there some definition of "regulated" that precludes "can be prohibited" that I'm unware of? If so, then the posession of firearms by felons, getting rid of Class 3 and no restriction on the propigation of fissile materials should be as easy as buying a Coke at 7/11.

[WildCat]

Back up thread someone asked if there were a link to the full decision. If someone has posted such a link I apologize for duplicating it.

Court decision here. (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf)
Thanks, reading it now. Won't finish tonight though!

[WildCat]

Is there some definition of "regulated" that precludes "can be prohibited" that I'm unware of?
In the decision (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf), the court notes that is what the DC was arguing - that they could, if they wanted, ban all firearms outright and that the 2nd Amendment was essentially a "dead letter":

The District of Columbia argues that the prefatory clause
declares the Amendment’s only purpose—to shield the state
militias from federal encroachment—and that the operative
clause, even when read in isolation, speaks solely to military
affairs and guarantees a civic, rather than an individual, right.
In other words, according to the District, the operative clause is
not just limited by the prefatory clause, but instead both clauses
share an explicitly civic character. The District claims that the
Second Amendment “protects private possession of weapons
only in connection with performance of civic duties as part of a
well-regulated citizens militia organized for the security of a

free state.” Individuals may be able to enforce the Second
Amendment right, but only if the law in question “will impair
their participation in common defense and law enforcement
when called to serve in the militia.” But because the District
reads “a well regulated Militia” to signify only the organized
militias of the founding era—institutions that the District
implicitly argues are no longer in existence today—invocation
of the Second Amendment right is conditioned upon service in
a defunct institution. Tellingly, we think, the District did not
suggest what sort of law, if any, would violate the Second
Amendment today—in fact, at oral argument, appellees’ counsel
asserted that it would be constitutional for the District to ban all
firearms outright. In short, we take the District’s position to be
that the Second Amendment is a dead letter.






eta: sorry about the formatting, it's a PITA to copy/paste from a pdf.

[WildCat]

Hey, this is what I've been saying for years!
In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

[WildCat]

When we look at the Bill of Rights as a whole, the setting
of the Second Amendment reinforces its individual nature. The
Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual
rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly
indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty.
The collective right advocates ask us to imagine that the First
Congress situated a sui generis states’ right among a catalogue
of cherished individual liberties without comment. We believe
the canon of construction known as noscitur a sociis applies
here. Just as we would read an ambiguous statutory term in
light of its context, we should read any supposed ambiguities in
the Second Amendment in light of its context. Every other
provision of the Bill of Rights, excepting the Tenth, which
speaks explicitly about the allocation of governmental power,
protects rights enjoyed by citizens in their individual capacity.
The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if
it were not read to protect individual rights as well.


Wow, this is as clear as it gets. The court actually put the 2nd Amendment in the context of the Bill of Rights, as it should IMHO.

[Skeptic]

So, if I bump this in a year, will the crime rate be up or down? Taking bets.

It might go up.

Which would, of course, be a decisive argument for dictatorship.

"See what happens when you let the stupid people decide about things, instead of the good, caring, all-knowing government which bans all the things that it thinks are bad for them?"

[Skeptic]

Let's see:

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.

Compare this to:

A healthy citizenry, not suffering from the cold, being necessary to the ecomomics of a free state, the right of the people to keep and wear coats, shall not be infringed.

Does this mean the government can decide that nobody can own a coat unless they are, say, white, or that nobody can wear a coat unless it is below a certain temperature?

Even if it is proved black people do not suffer from the cold, or that nobody is cold below a certain temperature, that would be absurd. The right given is the right to wear coats; the "healthy citizenry" part is at most the reason for this right, not the right itself.

I don't see how the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to mean anything apart from "people have the right to carry arms". The well-regulated militia is, at most, the reason given for this right, but not the right itself.

[Yjacket]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner - but I would really like to see it argued on the merits of the intent of the Framers regarding the bear clause of the 2nd Amendment rather than some of the B.S. NRA arguments I've seen about the milita being comprised of every white male over 18 or whatever so as to give it a more concrete legal basis.

For some reason my link to Title 10 at Cornell will not come up tonight so I went and found this one. Click here (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311) which says the same thing but it not presented quite as nicely. Note that it is not some NRA BS. Things have changed a bit in that by law we do not discriminate by sex or age so the gals are now included as are those over 45. Whether you like it or not you may be a member of the unorganized militia. But on the other hand I have not seen where the NRA is claiming that the Second Amendment is contingent upon ones militia status. Do you have some information about that which you would like to share?

As to the rest of your comment you might want to read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as some of the other court decisions that have been made over the years.

Just as a part of this post I would like to comment that I have seen some references made to the 1939 Miller Decision that seem to be coming from erroneous information. This particular Miller decision has a little something for everyone in it but the crux of the matter is that Miller nor his representatives appeared so the court due to lack of judicial notice reversed a lower court ruling and let the 1934NFA requirements about short barreled shotguns stand. It did nothing more than that. On the other hand the decision dicta has a very interesting comment -- The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.Fact of the matter is that the militia is a subgroup of the people and so in order for the militia to possess arms supplied by themselves it must mean that the people have easy access to arms that they can bear, carry.

As to the rest, I really do not want to get into a long go about the English Grammar of the Second Amendment but it is really quite clear that the first 13 words of the amendment are a lengthy phrase and really serve as a preamble to the sentence. The sentence subject, and verb are in the following 14 words. I realize that there are a lot of people who object to an approach like this but the fact is that the first 13 words of the sentence can be dropped and the meaning of the sentence, the right of the people, is unchanged.

[Yjacket]

I don't see how the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to mean anything apart from "people have the right to carry arms". The well-regulated militia is, at most, the reason given for this right, but not the right itself.

Exactly right. We could also say something like - A well informed militia, being necessay to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear newspapers, shall not be infringed. Would this mean, as some would have us believe, that only the members of a militia should have access to newspapers?

[WildCat]

It might go up.

Which would, of course, be a decisive argument for dictatorship.
But the reality is the decision will be appealed, and the decision stayed pending the appeal. This could easily take a year or more.

[Schneibster]

I sort of wish that people would quit trying to compare firearms and automobiles.

When you say you are in favor of training the owner of firearms like the owner of a car you are addressing only the issue of accidents, not criminal use. No. I am also intending to address their suitability to own and operate said dangerous instrument; it's not merely the possession of technical skill, but of good judgment. For example, in the drivers' examination, you can get dinged for not looking over your shoulder before you cross the bike lane to the curb to make a right turn. It requires judgment to realize that you need to look. Similarly, you don't need to know that you shouldn't open the chamber on a misfire; but if you have the judgment to operate a gun, it should be obvious.

Furthermore, to even take the test you have to show that you aren't subject to prior restrictions on your driving privilege that are still in effect. The same should go for felons and guns- I'd have to think about whether I think that should be lifelong or not. I don't have a firm opinion either way. But a recently released felon should not have the right to obtain a firearm. I don't think there's any question of that- and we have laws on the books about it, which should be enforced.

Finally, whatever the accident rate, the actuarial statistics are clear.

The argument here, I'll also point out, isn't about whether guns are dangerous. Any idiot can answer that one, far less intelligent people who can actually type and post messages on this board. The question is, why is that right in the Bill of Rights? I agree with the majority decision by the court, which is that it is an essential freedom in the eyes of the framers of our Constitution, and that their intent is that we should have the means to enforce our will on the government if it refuses to abide the results of our Constitutionally-mandated right to vote it out of power.

Comparing autos to cars is sort of frustrating because there are few commercially available commodities that are as controlled as firearms. Automobiles certainly are not, refer to the 1968 GCA. Click here (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2003) to visit a site where a spread sheet comparison has been prepared. Granted this site is operated by a pro-firearm ownership group but I suspect that you will find it difficult to fault their spreadsheet, and if you do find error I would appreciate knowing it. While I do not see it on the spreadsheet there is one other item that should be considered - as a law-abiding citizen I must have government (FBI) approval to purchase a new firearm but I need no such approval to purchase a new automobile.You require government approval to operate it on public streets- which is pretty much where you want it in order to go. And the approval is intended to prevent people who have had the right to bear stripped from them from circumventing the law. In many places, this is instant- they check you against the database and you're done. The restriction of your rights is minimal and consistent with the shared goal of preventing felons from getting around the law. There is no Constitutional protection against the government knowing you're purchasing a firearm, just as there is no such protection against them knowing you've purchased a car.

I think the analogy stands up far better than you; but why fight about it? What are we trying to accomplish? We're trying to comply with the Constitution, and do so in a manner that is consistent with general public safety. If we're prohibiting people from owning firearms, that's one thing; if we're making it a major hassle, that's another; but if we're making it as easy as is reasonable given the requirements of general public safety, I'm not sure what your objection is.

[Schneibster]

I'd be making arguments, but Gun Control debates bore me, especially with this crowd. But I find your position to be very reasonable, and that level of restriction I'm okay with.I'm beginning to see your point. Nothing but unrestricted ownership is acceptable to some folks; I suppose I have my own not very complimentary opinions about why that would be. I suppose it's not worth wasting time on.

[Lonewulf]

I'm beginning to see your point. Nothing but unrestricted ownership is acceptable to some folks (...)


And nothing but entirely prohibited ownership for others, with the goal of removing firearms from society for everyone.

The extremes swing either way.

(...) I suppose I have my own not very complimentary opinions about why that would be. I suppose it's not worth wasting time on.


All depends. It's surprising what you can end up learning from a good debate on the subject. "Good" being up to personal opinion.

[Schneibster]

And nothing but entirely prohibited ownership for others, with the goal of removing firearms from society for everyone.

The extremes swing either way.True enough. There's a good reason for having the means of enforcing our will on our government to hand. One of the roots of my respect for the British is that they seem by and large to get along without it. I suspect they've made the point that they don't need firearms to enforce their will enough times that any government they elect is unlikely to forget it. We're still a bit new at it; perhaps when we've been around a thousand years we won't see the need anymore. And perhaps that will turn out to be a mistake, in both cases. I certainly hope not, but you never know. I've yet to observe a limit on the stupid evil things people will do if they think no one can stop them.

All depends. It's surprising what you can end up learning from a good debate on the subject. "Good" being up to personal opinion.Absolutely. Too often, moderation turns out to be the fallacy of the middle ground; but it's usually a good starting place, and sometimes it really is the best way.

[CFLarsen]

Because to change it, we would either have to acknowledge openly that the ultimate check and balance against the powerful is the right of insurrection, which scares the s%&t out of half the population, or establish organized militias overseen by the government and not permit others to have guns, which scares the s&%t out of the other half. Neither group of framers was happy with the agenda of the other; one half wanted to just establish a new monarchy (the most prominent Federalist, Hamilton, wanted to elect a monarch for life), the other half wanted as little government as they could get away with. One half wanted everybody to have guns so they couldn't be messed with, the other half wanted to have an army without having to pay as much for it. What we got was the compromise between those two views. And the controversy continues to this day.

Because neither half will budge.

Are these halfs of equal size? How do you know what size they are?

First, America has no constitution. The US has a Constitution. I believe there are a few (<-sarcasm, for the impaired) other countries on the North and South American continents that do, too. You might want to keep that in mind.

I doubt anyone would think this was a discussion about anything else than the US.

Second, other than that quibble, I believe you are approximately correct in terms of public argument; however, I have to point out that the right of the people to be secure in their possessions, homes, persons, and freedoms has been more often violated by the US government than any other right in the Bill of Rights. Every single time, the justification is "public safety." Please read the Franklin quote I provided.

That's another issue.

It's a reasonable question. I hope you have some answers.

I'm not American. As in US citizen.

Personally, I'd like to see it clarified even simplified. However, that's much easier said than done. Various factions line up to determine how it would be clarified. That is exactly what is happening now, in the courts. With such little hope that it can be clarified to everyone's satisfaction, there's little reason to believe it can be simplified to everyone's satisfaction.

I see this attitude all the time in the US: If we can't satisfy everyone, we'd better not do anything at all. And besides, it has worked well so far, right?

But that is not a viable approach when you live in a world that is changing at an ever increasing speed. If your constitution of more than 200 years aren't suited for a modern world, what are you going to do? Do nothing, or change it to make it reflect the real world?

The last time Denmark changed its constitution was in 1953, because it was clear by then that King Frederik, after 3 girls, would not get a male heir. The throne would go to his brother's son, which was not seen as a good solution. It was after WWII, things were changing, women had become more visible in society, especially in the work place. Women shouldn't take a back seat to men, so why should they wrt the throne? So, we changed it. And no, it is very difficult to change the Danish constitution too, but that didn't stop us.

If the US constitution had allowed slavery, even today, what then?

why would you want to change something for clarity when the original meaning is what is being debated? That is simply a foolish idea. Especially when the constitution effects every citizen in the united states- there is a reason its hard to change.

Ah, yes, the "original meaning". Problem is, you will never be able to determine exactly what the "original meaning" was, because you can't go back in time and ask. You are stuck with interpreting a historical document, which is never an easy task.

It's similar to the way the Bible was collated: That was precisely as political as the US Constitution was, and the meaning of the Bible is as hotly debated as the Constitution itself.

Generating controversy is never a good reason to scrap something relevant to the government and the rights of citizens.

But if said document is written in such a vague way that cannot but generate controversy, then it is a compelling reason to change the wording, so the meaning becomes clear.

Especially after hundreds of years - the world sure looks different than back then. We don't live in a world of muskets anymore.

wether or not the first amendment is applicable to certain actions is a matter of controversy almost constantly.

Perhaps, but the different parties involved are not found among the population, but between the political establishment and the people. I'm not that far off, when I say that it is (some of) the politicians who want to put restraints on freedom of speech, while the population are generally in favor of more freedom of speech - am I?

The gun issue, however, divides the population itself.

And comparisons between different types of fruit are done all the time, too.

Are you saying that crime rates cannot be compared between countries?

[Schneibster]

Are these halfs of equal size? How do you know what size they are?Close enough, or one or the other would have won, then or now or somewhere in between.

I doubt anyone would think this was a discussion about anything else than the US.Perhaps then you won't object if I call you a Scandihoovian.

That's another issue.No, it's not, and the fact that you see it as a separate issue is precisely why you don't understand what you're looking at.

If you find that confusing, perhaps you'd care to put the quotes into context and ask some questions before you share your totally unfounded opinions. Just a thought.

I'm not American. As in US citizen.Obviously, in both contexts. You sure do think you've got a lot of important opinions about us, though- which appear from this statement to be founded on not very much of anything at all. Including historical context, social context, and simple observation.

If I were you, I'd be asking a lot more questions before I started shooting my mouth off, but the average IQ is, after all, 100.

Next time I don't believe I'll bother to answer being as how you don't appear to actually be interested in the answers.

Speaking of close-mindedness. At least I have the grace to expect you not to think like a US citizen. It appears useless to ask you to have the grace to expect me not to think like a Dane.

[chran]

... because he is considered the father of The US Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

James Madison, is considered by many to be the father of the Constitution, and not without good reason. What is perhaps less well known is his role in the Bill of Rights, too.

Madison, himself, in his election campaign against James Monroe for the new U.S. House, vowed to fight for a bill of rights. He informed the Congress on May 4, 1789, that he intended to introduce the topic formally on May 25; but on May 4, the Congress was embroiled in a lengthy debate on import duties, and when May 25 rolled around, the debate continued. He rose again on June 8 to introduce the subject, but he was blocked, with other members noting that the Congress had more pressing matters to attend to. Stifled, Madison rose again to say why he thought the time was right for the introduction of his list of amendments - and then presented them to the Congress anyway.

So here we get the master's own words, the "first draft" of the Bill of Rights if you will, and what does it say?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Here, it is CLEAR that James Madison couples the people bearing arms to a militia; the militia being comprised of the people. The right to bear arms is also the right to have a militia.

Therefore, no individual gun ownership was intended, other than in the context of a militia. But sure, if you want to argue against James Madison, be my guest :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Close enough, or one or the other would have won, then or now or somewhere in between.

Perhaps then you won't object if I call you a Scandihoovian.

No, it's not, and the fact that you see it as a separate issue is precisely why you don't understand what you're looking at.

If you find that confusing, perhaps you'd care to put the quotes into context and ask some questions before you share your totally unfounded opinions. Just a thought.

Obviously, in both contexts. You sure do think you've got a lot of important opinions about us, though- which appear from this statement to be founded on not very much of anything at all. Including historical context, social context, and simple observation.

If I were you, I'd be asking a lot more questions before I started shooting my mouth off, but the average IQ is, after all, 100.

Next time I don't believe I'll bother to answer being as how you don't appear to actually be interested in the answers.

Speaking of close-mindedness. At least I have the grace to expect you not to think like a US citizen. It appears useless to ask you to have the grace to expect me not to think like a Dane.

Xenophobic name-calling is a poor substitute for discourse.

[Schneibster]

I'm glad you noticed that, CFLarsen. Perhaps you'll stop soon.

[Schneibster]

But sure, if you want to argue against James Madison, be my guest :rolleyes:I'm sure that Madison had no idea there were people living out in the wilderness who needed guns not only to protect themselves from wildlife but also to hunt for food. He couldn't possibly have ever known that was going on in the eighteenth century, right? No, don't let them have any guns- they've got no use for them.

Yeahsureyabetcha.

Pull the other one.

[Schneibster]

By the way, chran, Madison was a Federalist and didn't believe the Bill of Rights was necessary in the Constitution; he did everything he could to water it down. The Second Amendment was a compromise, as were all the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

As far as Madison himself, I strongly prefer Jefferson's viewpoint, and Franklin's. The current administration is heavily philosophically influenced by the Federalists, and I disapprove.

[chran]

By the way, chran, Madison was a Federalist and didn't believe the Bill of Rights was necessary in the Constitution; he did everything he could to water it down.
Did he now?

Like the great philosopher JoJo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JoJo) said in the video for Too Little, Too Late (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Little_Too_Late), "It's about what you do, not what you say". Wise words indeed.

So tell me - why did James Madison petition Congress to let him present the Bill of Rights, in the face of strong opposition, and in the end, just did it anyway?

Madison, himself, in his election campaign against James Monroe for the new U.S. House, vowed to fight for a bill of rights. He informed the Congress on May 4, 1789, that he intended to introduce the topic formally on May 25; but on May 4, the Congress was embroiled in a lengthy debate on import duties, and when May 25 rolled around, the debate continued. He rose again on June 8 to introduce the subject, but he was blocked, with other members noting that the Congress had more pressing matters to attend to. Stifled, Madison rose again to say why he thought the time was right for the introduction of his list of amendments - and then presented them to the Congress anyway. Source (http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html)

A point which I, by the way, made in my last post. Care to address it?

Straight from the horse's mouth (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=225).

[Mephisto]

The problem is not guns themselves; it is people who are irresponsible with them. They are too easy to get. We have laws in the US that restrict gun ownership; then again, we have laws in the US that restrict the right to operate a motor vehicle. If we could strike a balance like that with respect to cars on guns, I for one would be more than satisfied with that. Note that this is neither the position of the NRA, nor the position of authoritarian left-wingers. It's a reasonable compromise; but neither of these groups is satisfied with that. This is typical of both groups.

I agree with your assertion here, Schneibster. I'm a gun owner and a long-time enthusiast who owns guns both for protection and target shooting. I've never been in trouble with the law and keep my guns safely locked away in a safe. Everyone in my family knows how to safely use and maintain all my firearms.

There are guns laws that I wouldn't mind seeing enacted and those include mandatory safety classes for potential gun owners, IQ tests and comprehensive background checks for criminal records. I would go so far as to require a limit of guns purchased in a month (with a waiver for collectors who would have to register as collectors with the Federal government). I also believe that non-related crimes like DWI or possession of dangerous drugs be grounds for mandatory confiscation of all firearms within a household. These laws could curtail the accidental shootings that occur because of unsafe handling and possibly crimes of passion.

Now, that would take care of the law-abiding segment of gun owners, but what about those who commit crimes with firearms; the hardened criminals? I would demand much stiffer mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a firearm (and no, I don't mean the presence of a firearm). I know, I know, there are already mandatory sentences for violent crimes, but all too often plea bargains and sympathetic judges allow criminals using firearms in the commission of a crime get off too easy. I believe an automatic mandatory prison sentence of 10 years without parole (or pardon) would eventually put the majority of violent criminals behind bars.

You're right about both groups in this argument not agreeing or willing to give an inch and that is why law-abiding gun owners see gun control advocates as bleeding-heart liberals tromping on Constitutional rights, and why gun control advocates see all gun owners as vicious, survivalist gun-nuts, armed to the teeth while guarding a pile of Ramen noodles.

The answer lies somewhere along the path of moderation - and that's a path that neither side is willing to walk.

[WildCat]

Here, it is CLEAR that James Madison couples the people bearing arms to a militia; the militia being comprised of the people. The right to bear arms is also the right to have a militia.

Therefore, no individual gun ownership was intended, other than in the context of a militia. But sure, if you want to argue against James Madison, be my guest :rolleyes:
I think it's clear that Madison meant just the opposite. If your meaning is to be accepted, the first clause is completely unnecessary. And remember - this is in the Bill of Rights. As the court noted, nowhere else in the Bill of Rights is "the people" defined as the state (or a collective right), and the authors were quite capable of differentiating between the people and the state. The first clause (in Madison's original version) clearly gives an individual right to own firearms, as does the nearly identical 2nd clause in the final version.

[chran]

I'm sure that Madison had no idea there were people living out in the wilderness who needed guns not only to protect themselves from wildlife but also to hunt for food. He couldn't possibly have ever known that was going on in the eighteenth century, right? No, don't let them have any guns- they've got no use for them.

Yeahsureyabetcha.

Pull the other one.

I think it's clear that Madison meant just the opposite. If your meaning is to be accepted, the first clause is completely unnecessary. And remember - this is in the Bill of Rights. As the court noted, nowhere else in the Bill of Rights is "the people" defined as the state (or a collective right), and the authors were quite capable of differentiating between the people and the state. The first clause (in Madison's original version) clearly gives an individual right to own firearms, as does the nearly identical 2nd clause in the final version.

OK OK! Sheesh! So clearly James Madison isn't my specialty - that should teach me not to investiGoogle :p

But ... I still think it's madness to be able to go into a store, and walk out with a handgun. You should only be allowed to buy rifles and stuff used for hunting, and then only if you have a hunting license.

[baron]

Australia was founded with convicts, but it's current crime rate is lower than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/...und-the-World. (http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World.)



Your link doesn't show that. It just says that total crime is more in the US, not the crime rate. Of course a nation w/ 300 million people is going to have more crime than much smaller countries. And according to your link, Australia leads the world in burglary rates, Canada in rape, and England in robbery rates.

Since when was No. 8 "leading the world"? :confused:

[WildCat]

Since when was No. 8 "leading the world"? :confused:

Where did you see "number 8" in that article?
Robbery – The past 2 decades saw a steady decline in the US. Countries with more reported robberies than US include England, Wales, Portugal, and Spain.
They even massaged the stats by counting England and Wales as separate countries! Wouldn't that be like counting Mississippi and North Dakota separately?

[Cleon]

They even massaged the stats by counting England and Wales as separate countries! Wouldn't that be like counting Mississippi and North Dakota separately?

Not really. Technically--or maybe I should say "supposedly"--they are separate countries. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are the four nations that make up the United Kingdom.

[WildCat]

Not really. Technically--or maybe I should say "supposedly"--they are separate countries. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are the four nations that make up the United Kingdom.
Understood, but they all have reps in the same Parliament, same Queen, same Olympic team, same judiciary, etc.

[Cleon]

Understood, but they all have reps in the same Parliament,

Actually, Wales has its own Parliament.


same Queen,

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have the same Queen. ;)


same Olympic team,

Well, I dunno if that's really a good measure of nationhood...


same judiciary, etc.

Wales has its own judiciary, too. ;)



Sorry, didn't mean to derail with the nitpicking. You do have a point--though I maintain the comparison of England and Wales with North Dakota and Mississippi is invalid; Wales is a separate country from England. Has its own language and everything. (I suppose Mississippi does, too, but next to Welsh, even people from Mississippi are understandable.)

So I dunno if this can be counted as "massaging" the data. I guess it would depend on whether it was standard practice to separate England from Wales (as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland) when doing statistical analysis of European countries.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Short on time this morning. Will respond when more is availible.

And I think there's a gun show this weekend... anyone want me to go buy them a nice SKS or semi-auto Styer-AUG?

[Cleon]

And I think there's a gun show this weekend... anyone want me to go buy them a nice SKS or semi-auto Styer-AUG?


Please? :D

[Mr. Stick]

Short on time this morning. Will respond when more is availible.

And I think there's a gun show this weekend... anyone want me to go buy them a nice SKS or semi-auto Styer-AUG?

An MP5 would be great, please. :Banane36:

[baron]

Where did you see "number 8" in that article?

They even massaged the stats by counting England and Wales as separate countries! Wouldn't that be like counting Mississippi and North Dakota separately?

Here - robberies per capita per country, using the same link ~

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

[Skeptic]

Is there some definition of "regulated" that precludes "can be prohibited" that I'm unware of?

"Regulated" almost never means "can be prohibited" in this context. If it did, one has no rights, only temporary permissions given by the government: the government could always "regulate" free speech, voting rights, etc. out of existence, as it used to do to blacks in the old south, for instance.

[Schneibster]

Did he now?

Like the great philosopher JoJo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JoJo) said in the video for Too Little, Too Late (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Little_Too_Late), "It's about what you do, not what you say". Wise words indeed.You need some training in propaganda recognition, not to mention advanced political maneuvering.

So tell me - why did James Madison petition Congress to let him present the Bill of Rights, in the face of strong opposition, and in the end, just did it anywayBecause the Anti-Federalists were making a huge fuss over what they saw as the Federalist takeover, what we today would call a junta, and had threatened not merely to deep-six the fledgling Constitution, but the Republic along with it. Thus the reference to making it acceptable to everyone rather than just the majority, a piece of propaganda (or if you prefer your beer unegged, a flat out lie) intended to convince naive people reading it later on to see what their Congrefs (no, that's not a typo, it's a joke) was doing that they didn't really need it, they just put it in there to satisfy a vocal minority.

The first link you posted is out-and-out propaganda intended to influence children to be good little fascists. Sorry, both of these change my opinion of Madison not one little tiny bit- the man was a snake.

[skeptifem]

Ah, yes, the "original meaning". Problem is, you will never be able to determine exactly what the "original meaning" was, because you can't go back in time and ask. You are stuck with interpreting a historical document, which is never an easy task.

as others have said, 'the people' is pretty clear. Just because someone is arguing otherwise still doesnt present a good reason to change it. I could argue that the 1st amendment means I can feed children poison, it doesnt mean that the meaning is unclear, just that I personally dont understand it. Again, controversy is not a good reason to scrap something.

It's similar to the way the Bible was collated: That was precisely as political as the US Constitution was, and the meaning of the Bible is as hotly debated as the Constitution itself.

This is a poor comparison. The bible contradicts itself constantly, has many different versions based on different interpretations, is thousands of years old, and has been translated many times. Those are the reasons I find the bible nearly impossible to figure out as far as its original meaning goes, and none of those apply to the constitution.



But if said document is written in such a vague way that cannot but generate controversy, then it is a compelling reason to change the wording, so the meaning becomes clear.

Would you be in favor of rewriting the first amendment? Again, there is constant debate over wether or not actions are protected under that amendment. I think it is worded just fine, but apparently it must be 'vague' since it generates controversy, according to you anyway. I happen to disagree. I think that government policies generate controversy no matter how clear cut they are.


Especially after hundreds of years - the world sure looks different than back then. We don't live in a world of muskets anymore.

I dont see how this is relevant. Couldnt this line of reasoning be used to oppose any part of the consitution or the bill of rights?



Perhaps, but the different parties involved are not found among the population, but between the political establishment and the people. I'm not that far off, when I say that it is (some of) the politicians who want to put restraints on freedom of speech, while the population are generally in favor of more freedom of speech - am I?

I cant be sure without studies, but Ive known a lot of people who are willing to ban things they simply dont want to hear.

The gun issue, however, divides the population itself.

abortion does too. I am not seeing the point here.


In general you seem to tie controversy and disliking of a policy as a reason to get rid of it. I dont think that the reaction to a policy determines its worth, like when a judge decided that ID will not be taught in kansas. It angered all kinds of people, despite being perfectly clear, and quite frankly correct.

[CFLarsen]

as others have said, 'the people' is pretty clear. Just because someone is arguing otherwise still doesnt present a good reason to change it. I could argue that the 1st amendment means I can feed children poison, it doesnt mean that the meaning is unclear, just that I personally dont understand it. Again, controversy is not a good reason to scrap something.

Who said anything about scrapping anything? Why do you think changing the wording of a concept necessarily means scrapping the concept?

Unless, of course, you consider the wording of the constitution akin to Holy Scripture.

This is a poor comparison. The bible contradicts itself constantly, has many different versions based on different interpretations, is thousands of years old, and has been translated many times. Those are the reasons I find the bible nearly impossible to figure out as far as its original meaning goes, and none of those apply to the constitution.

Really?? You have a crystal clear perception of how the US Constitution was intented, with absolutely no room for interpretation?

Would you be in favor of rewriting the first amendment? Again, there is constant debate over wether or not actions are protected under that amendment.

As a writer and editor, there is always something to be said in favor of rewriting things. We can always make our thoughts clearer by rewriting it. It is a never-ending process.

I think it is worded just fine, but apparently it must be 'vague' since it generates controversy, according to you anyway. I happen to disagree. I think that government policies generate controversy no matter how clear cut they are.

No, not according to me. On the contrary, I have advocated that the wording become much more clear, as opposed to "vague".

I dont see how this is relevant. Couldnt this line of reasoning be used to oppose any part of the consitution or the bill of rights?

Only if you were paranoid. The "right to bear arms" was issued - or, rather, granted by your Creator - in a time where guns were hard to come by, and nowhere as deadly effective as they are today.

I cant be sure without studies, but Ive known a lot of people who are willing to ban things they simply dont want to hear.

But does that apply to Americans in general? I sure don't hope so, and that's definitely not the impression I get.

If, however, that is your impression, what does that say about the American people?

abortion does too. I am not seeing the point here.

The point is, as I have explained, that the mere wording of this part of the US Constitution has triggered so much debate and so much controversy that it seems downright fundamentalist to reject even the notion of changing the wording, to make it clearer.

Note - please - that I say "change the wording", and not "change the meaning".

In general you seem to tie controversy and disliking of a policy as a reason to get rid of it. I dont think that the reaction to a policy determines its worth, like when a judge decided that ID will not be taught in kansas. It angered all kinds of people, despite being perfectly clear, and quite frankly correct.

No, I don't do that. I tie confusion and vagueness of a text to a reason to change the wording of it.

[Schneibster]

So, CFLarsen, are you going to do something other than call the points I made xenophobia so you don't have to answer them, or are we all to conclude that you don't have an answer and that's why you called them that? Because if you don't answer, my conclusion is you don't HAVE any answer, no matter what hand-waving you attempt.

[CFLarsen]

So, CFLarsen, are you going to do something other than call the points I made xenophobia so you don't have to answer them, or are we all to conclude that you don't have an answer and that's why you called them that? Because if you don't answer, my conclusion is you don't HAVE any answer, no matter what hand-waving you attempt.

I think you made up your mind about a lot of things a long time ago, no matter what.

[Schneibster]

I think you're trying everything you can to avoid having it pointed out that you have no answer. If you're not going to bother to answer, then I think I'll put you on mute so I don't have to listen to you accuse me of being a xenophobe every time I say something you don't like.

Answer, 'fess up you got none, or meet the mute button. Your choice.

[skeptifem]

Who said anything about scrapping anything? Why do you think changing the wording of a concept necessarily means scrapping the concept?

Im sorry, I assumed that you were in favor of changing it to mean that militias will only have firearms. Perhaps I am incorrect, but if you change the wording to exlude 'the people' you are scrapping a concept. If I am incorrect about your intentions please ignore that whole thing.

Unless, of course, you consider the wording of the constitution akin to Holy Scripture.

I really dont want to have this argument with you. Ive heard it before, and its silly. No, its not holy, but it does effect every citizen in the states, including me, so I consider it very important and the concepts within it very agreeable. thats why I dont think it should be changed without a very good reason.

Really?? You have a crystal clear perception of how the US Constitution was intented, with absolutely no room for interpretation?

It was written in english only a few hundred years ago, so in that sense it is much clearer than any given bible verse, which is what I was arguing. nice strawman though. Unless you care to explain how 'the people' doesnt mean 'the people', you should stick to the context of the argument (the bibles clarity vs the constitution).



As a writer and editor, there is always something to be said in favor of rewriting things. We can always make our thoughts clearer by rewriting it. It is a never-ending process.

Unless you are an authority on legal writings I dont really care. What is written into federal law has much more importance to citizens because it effects them, all of them. Its not the same at all as re writing an article to make it more enjoyable to the reader. It cant be taken as lightly.



No, not according to me. On the contrary, I have advocated that the wording become much more clear, as opposed to "vague".

you said this:

"But if said document is written in such a vague way that cannot but generate controversy, then it is a compelling reason to change the wording so the meaning becomes clear. "

So, is controversy a reason to change it, or not? Because, again, 'the people' is NOT VAGUE. Anything the government says, no matter how clear, generates ungodly amounts of controversy. see the thread about banning the term 'illegal alien'.



only if you were paranoid.

This doesnt answer the question at all. Why couldnt you use the same argument to justify anything you oppose?


The "right to bear arms" was issued - or, rather, granted by your Creator - in a time where guns were hard to come by, and nowhere as deadly effective as they are today.

the right to free speech was issued- or, rather, granted by your creator- in a time where decency was respected and upheld, and obscene media was no where near as common as it is today.

see what I mean?



But does that apply to Americans in general? I sure don't hope so, and that's definitely not the impression I get.

well, im not going to pretend I know when I dont know for sure.

If, however, that is your impression, what does that say about the American people?

That those particular people have strong feelings about an amendment they dont understand. :) lol



The point is, as I have explained, that the mere wording of this part of the US Constitution has triggered so much debate and so much controversy that it seems downright fundamentalist to reject even the notion of changing the wording, to make it clearer.

The 2nd amendment is clear enough. Changing the wording wouldnt do a lick of good because people who are unclear on its current wording will argue that the meaning has changed even if its just the wording, because they didnt agree with what it meant in the first place.

Note - please - that I say "change the wording", and not "change the meaning".

see above.



No, I don't do that. I tie confusion and vagueness of a text to a reason to change the wording of it.

Confusion is the fault of the reader if its a clear concept, so all you have to do now is prove that the 2nd amendment is vague. What exactly is vague about it?

[Pragmatist]

I think you're trying everything you can to avoid having it pointed out that you have no answer. If you're not going to bother to answer, then I think I'll put you on mute so I don't have to listen to you accuse me of being a xenophobe every time I say something you don't like.

Answer, 'fess up you got none, or meet the mute button. Your choice.

Hey Claus, it's quite an honour to be on Schneibster's "mute list", all the best people are on it, come and join us! :D

I just got my membership badge: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2416315

:D

[CFLarsen]

I think you're trying everything you can to avoid having it pointed out that you have no answer. If you're not going to bother to answer, then I think I'll put you on mute so I don't have to listen to you accuse me of being a xenophobe every time I say something you don't like.

Answer, 'fess up you got none, or meet the mute button. Your choice.

I have to admit, I'm curious. Where does this feeling of superiority come from?


Im sorry, I assumed that you were in favor of changing it to mean that militias will only have firearms. Perhaps I am incorrect, but if you change the wording to exlude 'the people' you are scrapping a concept. If I am incorrect about your intentions please ignore that whole thing.

I am not excluding "the people". I am not suggesting any changes, only that the wording is changed so there is a lot more clarity. Use modern day English, make up your minds about what it is you want.

I really dont want to have this argument with you. Ive heard it before, and its silly. No, its not holy, but it does effect every citizen in the states, including me, so I consider it very important and the concepts within it very agreeable. thats why I dont think it should be changed without a very good reason.

Continuous confusion for more than 200 years is not a very good reason for you?

It was written in english only a few hundred years ago, so in that sense it is much clearer than any given bible verse, which is what I was arguing. nice strawman though. Unless you care to explain how 'the people' doesnt mean 'the people', you should stick to the context of the argument (the bibles clarity vs the constitution).

Yet, the English of 200+ years ago has undergone significant changes. WTF is a "creator"? Can you honestly say that you understand perfectly what the Founding Fathers meant by that? That no other interpretation is possible?

In our modern world, 200+ years is a looooong time. At the time of the American Revolution, quite a lot of regimes in Europe were governed by a sovereign profoundly believed to be God's representative on Earth.

Unless you are an authority on legal writings I dont really care. What is written into federal law has much more importance to citizens because it effects them, all of them. Its not the same at all as re writing an article to make it more enjoyable to the reader. It cant be taken as lightly.

Quite so, which emphasizes my point: That the wording of a constitution has to be as clear as possible. You cannot, in any way, claim that the wording of the 2nd amendment is as clear as possible.

you said this:

"But if said document is written in such a vague way that cannot but generate controversy, then it is a compelling reason to change the wording so the meaning becomes clear. "

So, is controversy a reason to change it, or not? Because, again, 'the people' is NOT VAGUE. Anything the government says, no matter how clear, generates ungodly amounts of controversy. see the thread about banning the term 'illegal alien'.

The controversy stems from the very vagueness of the document. I don't see much - or, in fact, any - controversy about the phrase "the people". But I see a hell of a lot of controversy about just about everything else.

You know that there is a problem. I'll go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of Americans agree that there is a problem with interpreting this part of the US Constitution. So, why not change the wording to make it clearer?

Fix the goddamn problem! Isn't that what America's all about? ;)

This doesnt answer the question at all. Why couldnt you use the same argument to justify anything you oppose?

Because I am not suggesting a change of meaning, but a change of wording.

Don't go into defense-mode, just because I suggest a change of wording.

the right to free speech was issued- or, rather, granted by your creator- in a time where decency was respected and upheld, and obscene media was no where near as common as it is today.

see what I mean?

Rubbish. Sex, lewdness, prostitution and general mayhem have all been an integrated part of humanity, regardless of what period you choose.

well, im not going to pretend I know when I dont know for sure.

And neither do I. But can you venture a guess?

That those particular people have strong feelings about an amendment they dont understand. :) lol

But you do? Then, tell them! Inform them of your decisive knowledge! Be sure to explain why your interpretation is the right one.

Think they'll accept your explanation?

The 2nd amendment is clear enough. Changing the wording wouldnt do a lick of good because people who are unclear on its current wording will argue that the meaning has changed even if its just the wording, because they didnt agree with what it meant in the first place.

see above.

Oh, come on! You cannot possibly claim that the 2nd amendment is "clear enough". Not with the hundreds of years of debate on the subject.

Confusion is the fault of the reader if its a clear concept, so all you have to do now is prove that the 2nd amendment is vague. What exactly is vague about it?

No, no, no. Confusion is not necessarily the fault of the reader. I can easily construct a paragraph so obscure that nobody will be able to derive whatever meaning I intended.

Want to test it?

[CFLarsen]

Hey Claus, it's quite an honour to be on Schneibster's "mute list", all the best people are on it, come and join us! :D

I just got my membership badge: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2416315

:D

Yeah, but...

I really, really think the "Ignore" function should be abolished. I see it being abused more than used...

[Mr. Stick]

Okay, if we're going to change the wording, not the meaning, how about:
"In order for the people to be able to join the militia, should the need arise, their individual and personal right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

[LeFevre]

I think you're trying everything you can to avoid having it pointed out that you have no answer. If you're not going to bother to answer, then I think I'll put you on mute so I don't have to listen to you accuse me of being a xenophobe every time I say something you don't like.

Answer, 'fess up you got none, or meet the mute button. Your choice.

A good skeptic asks questions but doesn't answer questions, especially hard questions. Live and learn and one day you too can be a skeptic on this level. :eye-poppi

[skeptifem]

Quite so, which emphasizes my point: That the wording of a constitution has to be as clear as possible. You cannot, in any way, claim that the wording of the 2nd amendment is as clear as possible.

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"is extremely clear. it means exactly what it says.



The controversy stems from the very vagueness of the document. I don't see much - or, in fact, any - controversy about the phrase "the people". But I see a hell of a lot of controversy about just about everything else.

you still arent explaining why its vague. someone simply labelling something vague does not make it so.



Because I am not suggesting a change of meaning, but a change of wording.

is the meaning vague and confusing, or the words? Because if the meaning is confusing and vague re wording it without changing the meaning will just make it equally confusing. If the words are confusing, it wont do anything to convince people who already think the meaning is that militias are only allowed to have guns, they will just think that the meaning got changed anyway. it accomplishes NOTHING.




Oh, come on! You cannot possibly claim that the 2nd amendment is "clear enough". Not with the hundreds of years of debate on the subject.

Its just like when christians try to say that this is a christian country using selective and dishonest quoting of the founding fathers. It has been specifically spelled out by the treaty with tripoli that we are NOT a christian country, but people still argue about it all the time. what is spelled out for them is not vague, their biases get in the way, and no matter how you re word it for them they wont agree.



No, no, no. Confusion is not necessarily the fault of the reader.

I can easily construct a paragraph so obscure that nobody will be able to derive whatever meaning I intended.

Want to test it?

You should really look at what I wrote before replying. Here is what I wrote:

"Confusion is the fault of the reader if its a clear concept, so all you have to do now is prove that the 2nd amendment is vague. What exactly is vague about it? "

You never answered what is so vague about the 2nd amendment.

Ok, I will change my statement a bit just to say confusion is the fault of the reader if what they read is written clearly. And please, for the love of god, dont say that the fact that people debate it is proof that its unclear, because I already covered that with the 'christian nation' comparison.

[Schneibster]

A good skeptic asks questions but doesn't answer questions, especially hard questions. Live and learn and one day you too can be a skeptic on this level. :eye-poppiA dreadful fate, to say the least. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the difference between a skeptic and a skeptoid is that a skeptic accepts proof; not uncritically, but if something is shown to be true, then the skeptic accepts it; perhaps still with some reservations, but accepts it. The skeptoid never accepts anything that contradicts its arguments or beliefs. Anyone who presents such data is, for example, xenophobic. Feel free to substitute your own pejorative; this one seems a propos given the current conversation.

[Schneibster]

I have to admit, I'm curious. Where does this feeling of superiority come from?I'm curious too; were you always a skeptoid, or did you have to practice?

[Yjacket]

Originally posted by CFLarsen (#109) -- Continuous confusion for more than 200 years is not a very good reason for you?If you are referring to the Second Amendment there has not been confusion about the meaning for more than 200 years. This confusion is a recent thing, 30 or 35 years ago, and has come about because people are trying to find some way out of "the right of the people" and have gone to extremes in attempting to ignore the grammar.

Originally posted by CFLarsen (#109) -- Yet, the English of 200+ years ago has undergone significant changes. WTF is a "creator"? Can you honestly say that you understand perfectly what the Founding Fathers meant by that? That no other interpretation is possible?I do not recall the word "creator" being used in the US Constitution so please do show me the article and paragraph.

[RandFan]

:popcorn1

[CFLarsen]

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"is extremely clear. it means exactly what it says.

OK, you do claim that it is as clear as possible. Why all the hubbub, then? Those who don't see it exactly the way you do simply don't get it?

you still arent explaining why its vague. someone simply labelling something vague does not make it so.

Yes, I am explaining why it is vague: If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a debate at all.

is the meaning vague and confusing, or the words? Because if the meaning is confusing and vague re wording it without changing the meaning will just make it equally confusing. If the words are confusing, it wont do anything to convince people who already think the meaning is that militias are only allowed to have guns, they will just think that the meaning got changed anyway. it accomplishes NOTHING.

I see later that you are not opposed to changing the wording to clarify the meaning. But is it only the constitution that can't be touched?

Its just like when christians try to say that this is a christian country using selective and dishonest quoting of the founding fathers. It has been specifically spelled out by the treaty with tripoli that we are NOT a christian country, but people still argue about it all the time. what is spelled out for them is not vague, their biases get in the way, and no matter how you re word it for them they wont agree.

But you are not biased?

You should really look at what I wrote before replying. Here is what I wrote:

"Confusion is the fault of the reader if its a clear concept, so all you have to do now is prove that the 2nd amendment is vague. What exactly is vague about it? "

It is not a "clear concept", if so many people don't get it.

You never answered what is so vague about the 2nd amendment.

See above.

Ok, I will change my statement a bit just to say confusion is the fault of the reader if what they read is written clearly.

Ahhh.....you see how you sometimes need to change your wording to get the meaning across? :)

And please, for the love of god, dont say that the fact that people debate it is proof that its unclear, because I already covered that with the 'christian nation' comparison.

Yes, I saw that. What you are saying is that your interpretation is the right one, and everyone else is wrong.

I'm curious too; were you always a skeptoid, or did you have to practice?

What is a "skeptoid"?

If you are referring to the Second Amendment there has not been confusion about the meaning for more than 200 years. This confusion is a recent thing, 30 or 35 years ago, and has come about because people are trying to find some way out of "the right of the people" and have gone to extremes in attempting to ignore the grammar.

It's all a plot, then? A conspiracy to...what?

I do not recall the word "creator" being used in the US Constitution so please do show me the article and paragraph.

I do not recall saying it was. I used it as yet another example of how confusing your founding papers are worded.

What/who is the "creator"? Is it crystal clear what it means?

[Yjacket]

Originally posted by CFLarsen (#118) - It's all a plot, then? A conspiracy to...what?
If it is a plot or conspiracy I am unaware of it. But then again I guess that is the best that you can do. Perhaps you can answer your own question because I, not being aware of any conspiracy, am unable to do so.

Originally posted by CFLarsen (#118) - I do not recall saying it was. I used it as yet another example of how confusing your founding papers are worded.
You said it. Now you are trying to duck out and refer to founding papers. Well bub, the US Constitution is the founding document (paper) of the United States so if not the Constitution, to which founding document are you referring? Where is the word "creator" used in the US Constitution?

[CFLarsen]

If it is a plot or conspiracy I am unaware of it. But then again I guess that is the best that you can do. Perhaps you can answer your own question because I, not being aware of any conspiracy, am unable to do so.

Try to read what I say: Why are people "trying to find some way out of "the right of the people" and have gone to extremes in attempting to ignore the gramma"?

Clearly, they must have their reasons. What are those?

You said it. Now you are trying to duck out and refer to founding papers. Well bub, the US Constitution is the founding document (paper) of the United States so if not the Constitution, to which founding document are you referring? Where is the word "creator" used in the US Constitution?

The "founding papers" is a term used to describe:

...the United States Constitution, its Amendments, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Magna Carta.
Source (http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Papers-Vol-Constitution/dp/1411610075)

In the Declaration of Independence, you find this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

What/who is "Creator" of all men? Is it crystal clear what it means?

Is it crystal clear exactly what rights that all men have?

Is it crystal clear if women are also covered by this?

[WildCat]

The "founding papers" is a term used to describe:
Please show how Jeff Garzik's opinion becomes official information.

eta: also explain how the Magtna Carta is an official US document, and please cite where the court's decision in this case was based on the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, or the Articles of Confederation. Can you do that?

[The Painter]

In the Declaration of Independence, you find this:


Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
What/who is "Creator" of all men? Is it crystal clear what it means?

Is it crystal clear exactly what rights that all men have?

Is it crystal clear if women are also covered by this?

Psssstt, We are not governed by The Declatation of Independence. That was a document to break away from the King and England. We are governed by The Constitution.

[CFLarsen]

Please show how Jeff Garzik's opinion becomes official information.

eta: also explain how the Magtna Carta is an official US document, and please cite where the court's decision in this case was based on the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, or the Articles of Confederation. Can you do that?

What do you mean, "official"? It's a phrase used by others, also on this forum.

Is it some kind of forbidden term that I can't use? I can't talk about the DoI?

Psssstt, We are not governed by The Declatation of Independence. That was a document to break away from the King and England. We are governed by The Constitution.

And I'm talking about the founding papers.

Is there anything in the Constitution that is not crystal clear?

[WildCat]

What do you mean, "official"? It's a phrase used by others, also on this forum.
So you admit that these documents (except for the Constitution) are not official as far as law is concerned?

Is it some kind of forbidden term that I can't use? I can't talk about the DoI?
Not in the context of this court decision, unless you can show that the DoI, the Articles of Confederation, or the Magna Carta were used by the Court to make their decision.

Can you do that?

[CFLarsen]

So you admit that these documents (except for the Constitution) are not official as far as law is concerned?

My point is not whether these documents are official as far as law is concerned. My point is that there is confusion about what they say.

Not in the context of this court decision, unless you can show that the DoI, the Articles of Confederation, or the Magna Carta were used by the Court to make their decision.

Can you do that?

The discussion has moved on from this court decision.

[WildCat]

My point is not whether these documents are official as far as law is concerned. My point is that there is confusion about what they say.
So why don't you start a new thread on that?

The discussion has moved on from this court decision.
No, it's just you derailing the thread I started. If you can't tie in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Magna Carta to this case then you should start your own thread on the matter.

Perhaps I should start one for you?

[Yjacket]

That is sort of an interesting viewpoint. The Magna Carta as a founding document for the United States. I suggest the framers did indeed know of the Magna Carta and liked many of the principals set forth therein but it is stretching the imagination to call the document a founding document of the United States.

And yes, your quote does come from the Declaration of Independence. While the document is indeed a wonderful document there is nothing in it that was carried forward through the Articles of Confederation and into the US Constitution that established the United States. In the sense that it was a new concept spelling out a reason by the colonies as these colonies started what we call the Revolutionary War it is a founding document. But the influence ended there and the contents are not part of the framework or foundation of today's US Government. The US Constitution is the framework of that government and I repeat - show me in the framework and foundation of the Government we have today where the word "creator" is used.

As wonderful and meaningful as the Declaration of Independence is as a document that may or may nor have helped the colonies achieve independence it has no standing today. You are grasping for straws by bringing into the discussion the Declaration of Independence because we were discussing the Constitution and the first 10 amendments.

Originally posted by CFLarsen (#120) -- Clearly, they must have their reasons. What are those?
I guess that we agree, they have a reason. I do not need to know their reason to recognize their actions. Could be though that the reason lay in the following statements - "I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." --- Nelson T. `Pete' Shields, Chairman, HCI. From; "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", _The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976or"We must get rid of all the guns." --Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of Handgun Control Inc. Phil Donahue Show, September 1994

However I am not going to speculate upon the reasons because I can recognize actions without knowing the reasons behind those actions.