Barrack Obama = Jimmy Carter?

[AsianDream]

Italy would have returned to stable (and honest) democracy without war.

Looks like you've also heard the rumour that Italy will become a stable and honest democracy sometime soon - but certainly no obvious sign of it in the past 60 years!

 

[Kulindahr]

In theory it shouldn't matter who appoints US Supreme Court Justices - their job is to impartially and judicially interpret the Constitution.

The tendency of the Supreme Court to vote on partisan lines is a clear example of corruption - this is not what these people are being paid to do.

The moral decline of the US Supreme Court is I guess just one more example of the fact that almost anyone can be corrupted - even if these are supposed to be the greatest and most impartial judicial thinkers in the country.

True, true, and true.

For example, if they were impartial and judicial, the Heller decision would have been 9-0, because the intent of the Founders & Framers was plainly "that every man be armed". But some fall for novel theories that make them feel good instead of reasoning on the basis of common sense and original intent.

That makes me wonder -- did Carter appoint any justices?

 

[opinterph]

… did Carter appoint any justices?

President Carter did not appoint any Justices to the Supreme Court. He did appoint 2 individuals to the federal bench who later became Supreme Court Justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the US Court of Appeals for D.C. and Stephen Breyer to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. [Link]

 

[Kurn]

When you don't have experience you use observation and rationality to absorb and utilize the experience of those around you and of those who have preceded you.

 

[AsianDream]

True, true, and true.

For example, if they were impartial and judicial, the Heller decision would have been 9-0, because the intent of the Founders & Framers was plainly "that every man be armed". But some fall for novel theories that make them feel good instead of reasoning on the basis of common sense and original intent.

That makes me wonder -- did Carter appoint any justices?

I’m not sure that the idea that all citizens have the right to be armed is a good idea. It does lead to a very occasional nasty accident with kids shooting themselves accidentally. But you could use the same argument to ban bleach and most household cleaning products (which kids might drink)

On the other hand – criminals will always be able to get hold of firearms – these aren’t that difficult to make – so why not allow ordinary citizens to be armed in order to defend themselves?

Also - the right of the citizens to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution. Maybe this is the same as the Swiss constitution – which says that everyone must have military training and should be obliged to be armed.

I’m inclined to think that maybe the US is a better place because a lot of ordinary decent people are armed. So if I was a voter their I’d probably be a gun lobyists

 

[Spensed]

Those who think that individuals have the right to bear arms believe the Consitution gives them that right.

Those, who think that it doesn't and that the reference has to do with historical militias, etc., don't think the Constitution gives individuals that right and/or that the Government can constrain it.

I have to confess to not especially following the issue, but it's my understanding that it's not as clear cut on either side as folk would have you believe. Hence, the different positions.

Like the Bible, just because it's an old text, there's no reason to suppose that the Consitution is clear as as it could be on every issue.

 

[Kurn]

Spensed, respectfully, individuals have an uninfringable right to bear arms. In 1790, it would be unthinkable to have it mean anything else. That is also the simplest and most direct interpretation of the text of the 2nd Amendment.
People on the Right are so often uninformed about various issues having to do with good public policy, to put it briefly. But they even get Constitutional concepts corrupted--although that is rare among those who are literate.

People on the Left also make curiously erroneous statements. Those who read the 2nd Amendment and think it's mainly about militias just don't read very well. I don't care if they're a Federal Judge---that's not what it says.

However, back to thread topic...I'll still choose Barack Obama. He is intelligent enough to be responsive. There is a conflict between a generations-old tradition and a desire for community safety posed by these issues. Maybe an Amendment addressing community safety is needed. I'm not sure; but maybe some communities could local-option tighter gun-control.

To be sure, I'd rather see guns melted down yesterday...

 

[Spensed]

^ Well, you say one thing and a Federal Judge says another. Each thinks he's right and the other is wrong. That's kinda my point.

The last Supreme Court decision agreed with you, but the fact that the Supreme Court had to decide the issue indicates it's not as clear cut as you'd like to be believe. It was a five to four vote. Not a big deal for me. Just an observation.

 

[Kulindahr]

I’m not sure that the idea that all citizens have the right to be armed is a good idea. It does lead to a very occasional nasty accident with kids shooting themselves accidentally. But you could use the same argument to ban bleach and most household cleaning products (which kids might drink)

Those who think that individuals have the right to bear arms believe the Consitution gives them that right.

Asian: it has nothing to do with being "a good idea"; it has to do with being a right.
Spensed: the Constitution doesn't give any rights. Rights are inherent; the Constitution only names a few the Framers thought important -- and recall that those who didn't want them listed weren't saying they shouldn't be rights, they were saying that they were so obvious listing them wasn't necessary.

On the other hand – criminals will always be able to get hold of firearms – these aren’t that difficult to make – so why not allow ordinary citizens to be armed in order to defend themselves?

That's one of the primary practical arguments. It's also why the lawsuits against gun manufacturers for "harm to society" are wrong-headed: the best estimates are that firearms save some 200,000+ lives each year in the U.S., and stop 2 million+ crimes. Cities ought to be granting awards to gun manufacturers, not suing them!

Also - the right of the citizens to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution. Maybe this is the same as the Swiss constitution – which says that everyone must have military training and should be obliged to be armed.

I’m inclined to think that maybe the US is a better place because a lot of ordinary decent people are armed. So if I was a voter their I’d probably be a gun lobyists

The U.S. Constitution came close to listing a duty to be armed. We'd probably be a much better country if it had been that way -- for instance, gangs during Prohibition would have had a much harder time terrorizing people if everyone was armed and trained.

Those, who think that it doesn't and that the reference has to do with historical militias, etc., don't think the Constitution gives individuals that right and/or that the Government can constrain it.

Those who think that it grants some sort of group right can't read. The grammar is plain; the need for a militia for the security of a free state is not a main clause, nor is it written to be exhaustive. And again, the Constitution doesn't bestow any rights -- otherwise the end of the Bill of Rights makes no sense.

I have to confess to not especially following the issue, but it's my understanding that it's not as clear cut on either side as folk would have you believe. Hence, the different positions.

Like the Bible, just because it's an old text, there's no reason to suppose that the Consitution is clear as as it could be on every issue.

It is clear, and for the first century and three quarters there was no dispute at all about the meaning. All it takes is diagramming the sentence to see what it means; minus secondary clauses, it says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The rest merely gives one reason that right is protected.

That Obama does not understand that is one reason I am extremely skeptical about him as being fit to be president -- or a senator, for that matter.

 

[Kulindahr]

To be sure, I'd rather see guns melted down yesterday...

I wouldn't!
The affordable revolver made citizens equal to criminals for the first time: you didn't have to be large, muscular, or skilled with a blade (that takes training to learn); you just needed top be able to point. The handgun is the practical insurance of democracy, because with one, a little grandmother is equal to three thugs intent on robbing her.

 

[Spensed]

That Obama does not understand that is one reason I am extremely skeptical about him as being fit to be president -- or a senator, for that matter.

The last gun related Supreme Court case was decided five to four. Like it or not, like the Bible, it's something on which people differ.

 

[Kurn]

I wouldn't!
The affordable revolver made citizens equal to criminals for the first time: you didn't have to be large, muscular, or skilled with a blade (that takes training to learn); you just needed top be able to point. The handgun is the practical insurance of democracy, because with one, a little grandmother is equal to three thugs intent on robbing her.

What I meant was:
Guns-melted-down because there aren't violent people anymore because some day soon we realize that we've all been there and done that and have better things to do.
I think and see that that is a doable objective.
I would add that we would probably need a few guns for defense from wild animals, etc.

We can mold our human natures so that we aren't dangerous to each other anymore.

 

[Kurn]

The last gun related Supreme Court case was decided five to four. Like it or not, like the Bible, it's something on which people differ.

It astonishes that a Federal Judge can't read English.

But then I remember that there is a tradition of accomodating community standards. Stuff that isn't explicitly constitutional takes on a life of its own because that's the way a community expects things to be. That could be construed as a reserved right.

One example of sort of a community standard that's taken on a life of its own is our method of selecting Vice-Presidents---which is not in the Constitution. There is no clause in the Constitution that tells us that a Presidential candidate chooses a "running mate" who therefore becomes Vice-President if the candidate wins. The present method presumes that the citizen-voters would never want a vice-presidential candidate from a different party or an Independent.

 

[Kulindahr]

What I meant was:
Guns-melted-down because there aren't violent people anymore because some day soon we realize that we've all been there and done that and have better things to do.
I think and see that that is a doable objective.
I would add that we would probably need a few guns for defense from wild animals, etc.

We can mold our human natures so that we aren't dangerous to each other anymore.

Gotcha.
I'm dubious about "molding our natures", though; human nature hasn't changed in five thousand years, and isn't likely to change in the next five.

Wild animals -- definitely! There are critters here which can easily kill a human, that have been put on protected status... and now have no fear at all of people. Mountain lions, bears... they don't respect much except strength and size, and if you can't convince a predator you're too big to tackle, you need strength -- and that means a weapon.

But change our natures? I think it's more likely we could build a society without money!

 

[AsianDream]

I wouldn't!
The affordable revolver made citizens equal to criminals for the first time: you didn't have to be large, muscular, or skilled with a blade (that takes training to learn); you just needed top be able to point. The handgun is the practical insurance of democracy, because with one, a little grandmother is equal to three thugs intent on robbing her.

I can see a lot of sense in the argument that having a firearm makes a little grandmother equal to several thugs’ intent on robbing her. So should be a deterrent that protects the ordinary person against bad people.

However the constitutional statement that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was made at a time when “arms” were fairly basic. In contrast - in Japan at that time the law was that only Samurai could bear swords.

In fact the capability of “arms” has expanded almost exponentially in the last 200 years. Whereas “arms” then meant muskets or cannons – now these are a lot more capable.

Does the Grandmother being robbed need an automatic weapon? Maybe an RPG would come in handy? What about a cruise missile (which is just another type of “arm” – as is a nuclear bomb).

In other words the rights of ordinary US citizens to bear arms is already severely infringed. Again the legal position is probably not a good guide to the real position. At the time the US constitution was framed no one conceived of the fact that all you would need today to make a very powerful bomb is a ton of fertilizer – so any farmer in the USA could become a Timothy McVeigh if they wanted to.

So the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” in the USA today should probably be infringed to permit these to be only of specific types and only be useful for specific purposes. In the case of the Grandmother being robbed – this would indicate that the most appropriate weapon would be a semi-automatic “sawn-off” shotgun. Which would need only minimal aiming and allow for a very high rate of fire (in contrast – a revolver must be aimed and has a slow rate of fire).

The clear implication is that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” should be – and actually is - very much infringed.

As to the comparison of Barrack Obama with Jimmy Carter - I think both have a similar view on guns - in that neither will seek to alienate the "Gun Lobby" but won't oppose any move congress makes.

One strength of the US system is that the "Gun","Gay" and "Jewish" lobbies all have similar electoral support (about 4% each) - who are fairly evenly divided on political lines - but who's vote will swing violently against those that threaten their core interests.

In the same way that Obama won't do anything to seriously antagonise the "Gun" vote - McCain won't do anything seriously "anti-gay" - both are meanwhile trying to juggle the Jewish vote (with inherent democratic leanings - but very much influenced by the Republican pro-Israel policy).

 

[Spensed]

It astonishes that a Federal Judge can't read English.

Yeah, that must be the only explanation.

 

[Kurn]

Gotcha.
I'm dubious about "molding our natures", though; human nature hasn't changed in five thousand years, and isn't likely to change in the next five.

Wild animals -- definitely! There are critters here which can easily kill a human, that have been put on protected status... and now have no fear at all of people. Mountain lions, bears... they don't respect much except strength and size, and if you can't convince a predator you're too big to tackle, you need strength -- and that means a weapon.

But change our natures? I think it's more likely we could build a society without money!

How to change human nature?

Well, rather than debating, I'll tell you the kernel of the how-to:

It involves personal strategies that are somewhat counter-intuitional. To, say, drastically reduce interpersonal violence, what is needed is actually less in the way of social constraints. But not, I emphasize, an abandonment thereof. Changing the behaviors of violence needs both greater institutional freedom and restraints that are subtle, carefully chosen and not always apparent. Over all, and under all there must be a comprehensive morality. I frequently use the evangelical symbol of the wine-bag. What's wrong with church morality is that it's been used-to-death...and it's deadly.
Changing human nature must come out of each person's free will.

Hint: If you wanted to reduce the incidence of personal violence in your micro-region, look not to "solutions" of the right, nor of the left. Nor, so much, to business-as-usual. I can't tell you exactly what to think of, because it's your environment. Don't repeat "tradition." Tradition has brought us so far. Thank tradition, and then let it retire. And think of something new.

The American Constitutional context is something new although it is now 23 decades old. It is in a sense the only communist system that has ever worked (Scandinavia could make a similar claim). "Communist" in the sense of "class-free." "Communist" in the original sense of the word, of course. What is needed is not so much a drastic change, as various micro-changes carefully positioned so that citizen behavior adjusts to become gentler.
...

 

[Kulindahr]

I can see a lot of sense in the argument that having a firearm makes a little grandmother equal to several thugs’ intent on robbing her. So should be a deterrent that protects the ordinary person against bad people.

That example is actually from a real occurrence: a grandmother in a wheelchair was assaulted in a city park by night; she gave them everything they asked for, but they were angry because it wasn't as much as they'd hoped, so they tipped over her wheelchair and began kicking.
They hadn't reckoned that a frail wheelchair-bound white-haired lady would have a miniature six-shooter and know how to use it.
Ever since weeing that news report, I've wondered how she felt about lying there with three corpses until someone found her.

However the constitutional statement that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was made at a time when “arms” were fairly basic. In contrast - in Japan at that time the law was that only Samurai could bear swords.

In fact the capability of “arms” has expanded almost exponentially in the last 200 years. Whereas “arms” then meant muskets or cannons – now these are a lot more capable.

The Samurai are an excellent example of the other side of the picture, when those with wealth, time, and training could be more powerful than anyone else, and thus have their way.

Does the Grandmother being robbed need an automatic weapon? Maybe an RPG would come in handy? What about a cruise missile (which is just another type of “arm” – as is a nuclear bomb).

There's a common understanding of the time that's necessary here, just like the common understanding of the word "militia" for the introductory clause. When arms for "the people" were spoken of, it was governed by the "regulated" (organized) concept of militia: individuals had individual arms, groups had group arms. So while technically a cannon is an "arm", it doesn't count under what "the people" can bear; it's a crew-served weapon. Crew-served weapons could be "kept" by the people, but in a location where the crew to serve them would maintain them.

So in common parlance, "to keep and bear arms" referred, on a personal level, to personal arms. If (the) people organize a militia, then as a group they could properly "keep" crew-served weapons, for the defense of their communities -- but one of the marks of a proper militia, contrary to those who have their own and defy the government, is that it will be available to the call of the government for keeping order. Indeed, a posse -- a group of men called up by law enforcement for the apprehension of particular outlaws -- is a form of the militia in action.

The real distinction in weaponry between the time of the Revolution and now is that of offensive and defensive weapons. I can't think of any weapon back then which was purely offensive or purely defensive, but we certainly have them now. Missiles for striking immediate targets which are threatening you can be considered defensive, but long-range missiles, especially with nuclear warheads, are almost purely offensive.
It is not unreasonable to argue that the Second Amendment did not mean to include purely offensive weapons. Thus cruise missiles are probably out, but SAMs are in; bombers are probably out, but fighters might be in. But for purely personal weapons, as for grandma, what's covered is what one would normally expect to need for the expected situation -- so unless she expects thugs to come upon her in an armored vehicle, an RPG would not be proper.

In other words the rights of ordinary US citizens to bear arms is already severely infringed. Again the legal position is probably not a good guide to the real position. At the time the US constitution was framed no one conceived of the fact that all you would need today to make a very powerful bomb is a ton of fertilizer – so any farmer in the USA could become a Timothy McVeigh if they wanted to.

So the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” in the USA today should probably be infringed to permit these to be only of specific types and only be useful for specific purposes. In the case of the Grandmother being robbed – this would indicate that the most appropriate weapon would be a semi-automatic “sawn-off” shotgun. Which would need only minimal aiming and allow for a very high rate of fire (in contrast – a revolver must be aimed and has a slow rate of fire).

The clear implication is that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” should be – and actually is - very much infringed.

The right is infringed only where there are gun bans, registrations, fees, restrictions, and other barriers to obtaining ordinary personal weapons.

And actually, grandma would have a hard time bearing and using a sawn-off shotgun; they are hard to conceal, and somewhat difficult to bring into play. That would be an appropriate weapon for a small business in a high-crime area, though. For an ordinary citizen, the best weapon for self-defense is usually a medium-caliber handgun -- whether semi-auto or revolver depends on the individual's hand strength more than anything.
But there should be no infringement as to weapon type; what type works best for one person will not be the best for the next. Inherent in human dignity is the right to arm oneself as one chooses, as well, so infringement by banning some types and approving others is immoral, anyway.

As to the comparison of Barrack Obama with Jimmy Carter - I think both have a similar view on guns - in that neither will seek to alienate the "Gun Lobby" but won't oppose any move congress makes.

So in other words they're spineless.
... BIG recommendation against Obama!

One strength of the US system is that the "Gun","Gay" and "Jewish" lobbies all have similar electoral support (about 4% each) - who are fairly evenly divided on political lines - but who's vote will swing violently against those that threaten their core interests.

Don't forget the Pink Pistols and the JPFO.