The 2nd amendment discussion is coming

[poolerboy]

Not sure why the Second Amendment is being invoked; it's rather unnecessary IMO. The issue involves a mentally ill person who can, by law, be excluded from such possession and use. The question is what failed in the process and what can be done in the future to seal this gap. Will tighter restriction completely prevent a person from obtaining firearms? Of course not. But this rationale is irrelevant. A person determined to drive will do is irrespective of the DMVs rules about who is fit or unfit to be given the privilege of driving a motor vehicle. Likewise such regulation for firearms is fine and certainly does not violate the law.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fair enough, but serious scholastic energy is wasted across many people in debating the initial phrasing. What you have there seems to overstep the use of "the people" in the Constitution--- for instance one use obviously refers to only those who could vote--- which I believe was dependent on their ethnicity, land ownership and age. It doesn't, as Jackoroe argued, allows for tank or fighter plane ownership. It allows for all manners of government regulation and limitation, just as long as the basic right itself, which isn't even applicable to every single citizen, remains intact.

Jackoroe is wrong in saying an individual could own one of those, as they are crew-served, and crew-served weapons were the province of crews, not individuals.

But it doesn't "allow for all manners of government regulation and limitation" -- it allows for far less even than for free speech and freedom of religion. That's the nature of the word "infringe", which means to mess with the non-essential elements of a thing. So there can't be licenses, fees, taxes, restrictions, whatever -- no waiting periods, no limits on purchases, no training, no fingerprinting.

The only limitation is the one always traditional for militias even then: violent criminals were barred, and "deranged persons".

I'm not sure why you say it's not "applicable to every citizen", when it covers every legal resident (illegals, not being eligible to serve, i.e. not properly members of the militia -- for while one does not have to belong to any formal militia to have this right protected for one, one does have to be a legitimate member of the militia). It ceases to apply only when an individual disqualifies himself, or is publicly and evidently 'disabled' with respect to the use of firearms.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think every America ought to be issued an M16 when they turn 16. And we all ought to be required to carry a loaded weapon wherever we go.

That way, there would be NO CRIME!





Because everyone would be dead.

Not even Somalia came out that bad, and they have no real tradition of civic responsibility with weapons.

Besides, the M-16 is a lousy weapon for responding to criminal activity against oneself.

And even if everyone were issued an Uzzi, I doubt we'd lose even 5% of the population: most people would work hard at being polite, a large portion would take no nonsense and set up some neighborhood watches with teeth. The idiotic, irresponsible, and mean/evil would to a large degree kill each other off, and the responsible would teach most of the rest what it means to face a free citizen.

 

[Kulindahr]

This.

I really don't understand why anyone would want to own a Gun, though.

1. Basic human dignity.
2. Because your life is worth something and the government has no duty to protect you.

kuli, i wasnt joking the other day

the arizona shooter was a "Pothead"

that will setback any advances the pro-pot movement have had recently

I can hear the Radio Political Ads now...

Two-fifths of Americans think all the laws against marijuana should be tossed. Throw in medical uses, and it's over three-fifths. For that many people, something like this is a mere blip.

 

[BostonPirate]

i like you BP

I knew you wanted me

 

[Kulindahr]

Not sure why the Second Amendment is being invoked; it's rather unnecessary IMO. The issue involves a mentally ill person who can, by law, be excluded from such possession and use. The question is what failed in the process and what can be done in the future to seal this gap. Will tighter restriction completely prevent a person from obtaining firearms? Of course not. But this rationale is irrelevant. A person determined to drive will do is irrespective of the DMVs rules about who is fit or unfit to be given the privilege of driving a motor vehicle. Likewise such regulation for firearms is fine and certainly does not violate the law.

== == ==

Another way to approach that would be that if an institution like a college thinks someone is a danger, they could order a paid evaluation, the condition being if you take it, and pass, you can stay in school, but if you don't take it, you're banned.

 

[BostonPirate]

Two-fifths of Americans think all the laws against marijuana should be tossed. Throw in medical uses, and it's over three-fifths. For that many people, something like this is a mere blip.

In Massachusetts anything under an ounce is decriminalized.

I smoke pot with the 89 year old haitan lady that lives next door. We sit out on the front porch and start our day together when weather permits. Her kids, in their sixties, are embarrassed to no extent.

 

[Kulindahr]

dunno kuli - the prop 19 vote here in cali, of all places, was an eye opener

And its cousin here in Oregon. Yeah, those were a shock.

 

[White Eagle]

The Amendment as written, allowed us to have the same weaponry as the standing army of the day. A strict constructionist would argue that should still hold true.

I'm of the opinion that if you want an F-22 on your front lawn, that's your right and privilege. I'd personally like an M1 tank.

I'd rather have the driver. Not you Jack! The Army guy!!

 

[White Eagle]

BostonPirate, I'm surprised to hear the core of your defence being "It's just who we are." That's not how you argued for health care. That's not how you argued DOMA. You have reasons why it's a good idea....or should...



Nooooo no no... that's a bunch of "Living Tree" liberal activist silliness heresy. A flintlock musket....or nothing.

That's what it means. I'm on to you guys, playing fast and loose with whatever judicial "reasoning" suits you at the time. Three words for you, and they're the only ones in Amendment Number Two.

Flint.
Lock.
Musket.

Ok, something a little off topic. Today I found an English to American dictionary. Now you Brits and some Canuks can say whatever you want without translating it to American.
Now back to topic.
Now subjecting myself to Kuli's wrath, I have to agree with you, flintlocks or nothing.
Crikey!

 

[Kulindahr]

Now subjecting myself to Kuli's wrath, I have to agree with you, flintlocks or nothing.
Crikey!

So you're going to argue with the Founding Fathers?

If I had my files, I'd list quotes. But it was plain that to them "arms" meant the best thing an army might have.

 

[bankside]

Ok, something a little off topic. Today I found an English to American dictionary. Now you Brits and some Canuks can say whatever you want without translating it to American.
Now back to topic.
Now subjecting myself to Kuli's wrath, I have to agree with you, flintlocks or nothing.
Crikey!

Okay my impression is that only Crocodile Dundee ever said "Crikey."

And in what I wrote, you can translate it to Americanian if you want to, but I thought it was pretty much already standard English. Nothing especially stands out as being from Canuckistan. Eh?

 

[bankside]

So you're going to argue with the [STRIKE]Founding[/STRIKE] Amending Fathers?

Fixed that for you. Much like those who are "born again," they got it right the first time. Or as right as they were going to get it.

BTW, even if it had been the founding fathers, they were wrong about 3/5ths too.

 

[bankside]

The other option might have been to have a smaller Union.

 

[BostonPirate]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0Y4qIZ4PA&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Kulindahr]

1. Don't need a gun dignity.
2. Don't need a gun to protect yourself.

A government telling its citizens they can't have guns is telling them their lives are worth very little, because they are to be victims of whatever criminal might come along.

Don't need a gun? When a guy comes at you with a baseball bat, a knife, or a two-by-four board, what else but a gun will serve as a defense? The point of a defense is to stop the threat, and there aren't many people at all who can stop the threat when it has a lethal weapon.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fixed that for you. Much like those who are "born again," they got it right the first time. Or as right as they were going to get it.

BTW, even if it had been the founding fathers, they were wrong about 3/5ths too.

What "amending"? They stated what the phrase meant -- that's not "amending" at all.

What does the 3/5ths have to do with the meaning of the Second?

 

[Kulindahr]

The other option might have been to have a smaller Union.

MASSIVE strategic mistake, which would have led to total defeat, and probably the imposition of British nobility on the colonists. Trying to go it as two groups would have invited the British to defeat them in detail. If they'd cooperated for independence and then split, in the War of 1812 the British would have defeated the South, and later launched an invasion to take back the North.

Benjamin Franklin wasn't just making a memorable phrase when he said, "Gentlemen, we must stand together, or assuredly we shall hang together."

 

[JB3]

What "amending"? They stated what the phrase meant -- that's not "amending" at all.

What does the 3/5ths have to do with the meaning of the Second?

Because he's trying to impugn the integrity and ideas of the founders, and trying to marginalize what they achieved because he disagrees with the second amendment.

 

[Kulindahr]

because those old racist white guys and their ideas are obsolete

So because some people died self-ownership changes?

You already agreed with the post that explained why the 3/5ths has no relevance to the Second. That was political expediency, not a statement of inherent rights.