The 2nd Amendment

Perhaps with regards to food you might (or atleast a heavily reduced selection) - but what about consumer goods (electrical goods etc)? I don't see you guys taking up making wicker baskets or woodwork as a hobby. I know I sounded a little mean - but it was because of, also, some of the issues you mention (along with a whole host of others). Good luck with that (as they say).

 

Evolution right before my eyes!

 

The second amendment says that, pursuant to the maintainence of a well regulated militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

It says NOTHING about any other situation. The second amendment is the NRA's worst nightmare, if it was ever actually read.

Having guns that you might aid the military, is the only fundamental right that the constitution sets out with regards to this. I resent people deciding that the second amendment automatically defends anything they want to do with a gun, or any gun they want to own -- it's simply not the case. If you read it, it looks like they envisioned something more like the swiss model, and no matter what the NRA will tell you about guns per capita, those are ALL military guns, and well regulated as such, and if you act nuts or whatever, they will NOT give you a gun.

 

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say earlier, but of course I got shot down, so to speak.

 

You and I must be reading two separate amendments. It says nothing about where those arms we have the right to own must come from. The militia clause isn't a conditional one.

If they had something like the Swiss model in mind they never said so, and certainly made no effort to put anything like it into practice.

 

I remember that. The thing is, when activated, militias certainly do typically fall under the command of the standing military. It all depends on who calls the militia out. Either way, they were not part of the standing army. If they were part of the standing army they would have been classified differently. They were administered separately.

 

The US was, at that time, a few guys hanging out on the other side of the world from everyone else. Of course it doesn't say where the arms come from, think about the world they lived in. And I'm not saying that where they come from should be regulated.

The militia is mentioned for a reason. It's not written in modern gradeschool english, but it says that you can have guns, because there needs to be a well regulated militia. It doesn't say that nobody outside the militia can have guns, they left that open, but they surely did not guarantee that anybody could own guns, of any particular type. I'd wager that given the state of modern weapons, they would say that you need to be in the militia to have military weapons. At the time, the differences in guns where considerably different, and none of them could hold a candle to the most basic gun today. A walmart .22 and 20 minutes on a range could get somebody ready to take on the whole damn army of redcoats, and quite possibly win.

So I totally agree, there should be no limitations on muzzle-loading weapons. Go nuts with them, I don't care at all. Bear them, bare them, carress them, that's all fine by me. That's what the framers thought "arms" meant.

 

Ahhh yes, the "times were different" argument. I've seen this before, in this very thread even. Your logic here is, I think, severely flawed and even dangerous. Using that same logic, one could argue the first amendment doesn't apply to anything said on television, on the radio, or anything posted on the internet. After all, these technologies didn't exist then and they could not have even imagined them. So how could they have meant for that freedom to apply to content on those forms of media? Do you see the absurdity of that logic?

For better or worse, they wrote "arms". Not muskets, not pistols, not cannons, and so on. The used the all encompassing term "arms".

Furthermore, since many of them believed those arms gave citizens the tools to overthrow their government should that government become tyrannical, I'd argue that many would insist that the arms citizens own must be comparable to those that the government wields.

 

There's no reason to assume that freedom of speech shouldn't apply to freedom over whatever medium. Freedom of the press is much more clear about freedom to speak over indirect methods, than the second amendment is about ANYTHING. This is a strawman argument, and a distraction.

They said that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. They left open exactly what would constitute infringement. If someone they thought shouldn't have a cannon had a cannon, I don't think there would have been any hesitation about taking it (and a cannon of that time was somewhat less dangerous, in killing potential, than a single modern gun).

They where quite loose about the second amendment, allowing it to be pretty much taken how it needs to be. One thing they wrote quite specifically was that it was for a militia, to protect the US. They never said a fuckin' word about it being to fight the government. I'm using what it says, you're fabricating what it COULD have said if the people you THINK thought something, actually WROTE that. But that's NOT in the constitution. I have nothing against protection from abusive government, but if you want protection, pull your head out, it's time that special interests, just like the NRA, stopped hijacking our system, and we had truly free, non-rigged, non-gerrymandered elections, without special interest money, so that our politicians could be held to the will of the people. No amount of guns will save you from the corrosion that the NRA, and their cohorts on both sides of the isle, are causing to american freedom. If there is such support for guns, simply having an honest government would insure their legality, to the point that is supported. If you care about accountability, let's worry about changing the government while it's still possible, because the simple fact is that it wouldn't matter what gun you had, if they wanted to they could make you a greasespot, they could easily do so without the guy ever having to get out of his chair.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s_as_missile_hits_target.theora.ogv.360p.webm

I don't want bubba next door having predator drones. I don't want the government having them either, but you're not going to fix that by fighting them.

 

You were the one who brought technological considerations into the discusson, Roo. If you open one (the 2nd) to that line of argument, you open them all to that same line of reasoning. You assume that they couldn't possibly mean the 2nd Amendment covers modern, military style weapons, yet go on to assume that those same technological considerations wouldn't effect their thinking on other amendments?

And yet they didn't grant the right to bare arms to only those who are members of a militia. On the contrary, they ensured it was an individual right to own and keep arms, regardless of milita affiliation or membership. Also, if we are going to be quite literal in what they wrote, they didn't right a damn thing about the milita protecting the US in the constitution either. Again, the militia clause is an informative clause, not a conditional one.

Either way, many of the framers are on record saying that citizens need arms to protect themsevles as much from a tyranical government as from some foreign invader.

You're preaching to the choir here, Roo. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member/supporter of the NRA. That said, I think the NRA is the least of our worries. Though, in that regard, I think our leanings will differ.

 

As far as technology goes, it simply makes much more sense to be hasty about banning things that physically hurt people. The TV can't hurt you, and nothing the guy on it says can. Some things can alter the general perception of society in harmful ways -- that's why they executed a newspaperman who lead the anti-semetic fervor at nuremberg, that's why you can't say some things on the open airwaves, or in public. You have the right to say or think anything, but where you can is actually quite limited (obviously, sometimes for good reasons and for the better, other times for very negative reasons and with bad effects)

I don't see the second amendment as being anywhere near as forceful in it's wording as the first, or fourth, or fifth (my favorites, so I obviously do have some bias. I'd rather fight with peaceful disobediance and words). I quite agree that it says that people can be armed, but I don't see that it allows ownership of all types of arms, or of any type of arms in all situations.

Ehh I don't think the NRA is the biggest problem, but I think the fact that hey have the position and foothold that they do is unfortionate. I wouldn't argue to unseat them, without removing all such crap from politics, because a balance of power is important. I'm not the type who would say that, say, the balance of power during the cold war was important, or anything, but to a point it can help to keep things working. But I think that balance of power needs to be replaced with the one that it displaced, a balance between the people, and their legislative/executive/judicial repersentitives, who's malice can hopefully generally be diffused on/by the other branches. What's happened is the general collusion between all of those branches, and the division on party and idelogical (or percieved party and ideological) lines. Maybe the republicans fight the democrats, and vice versa, but they all help their friends, whatever branch they're in. And they even help their enemies, simply because they're all in the government club together.

So yeah.... I think if we could fix that, guns could be ironed out. Obviously there are those who think there should be no guns, and those who want their own backyard ICBMs, but we could have more rational and balanced results with less interferance from outside groups, and less sensationalist media on both sides. Don't get me wrong, the first amendment is clear about people being able to group and petition for redress, but I don't think that should extend to "openly bribe whatever you want out of whoever you want, because congress is for hire".

I know, you generally will agree with lots of that. But my point is that I think it's the bigger solution to all of this. I personally think that ideally nobody should have guns, but they're necessary -- at the same time, I think you can probably accept the fact that people should NOT have their own hellfire missiles. There's a point where the benefits don't outweigh the drawbacks, and it's just a matter of finding that point and compromising, because in the end compromise is necessary. I think that we could use stiffer enforcement of the controls we have, but generally, it's about right. I also think that if we're honest about reducing violenc, we'll forget the gun debate, and end the causes of the violence, and work towards a more calm, peaceful culture. Ending the war on drugs would save more lives in a few weeks than new gun laws would all year. (well, initially there would be a backlash, and all sorts of drama, but, we're digging the hole now, and we'll have to climb out at some point -- the longer we wait, the deeper the hole will be).

 

Wolfy, I have a somewhat long winded reply formulated in my mind.

However, I hit happy hour after work with some coworkers and I don't think I can articulate the way I want to right now. Maybe in an hour or so but right now haha.. not good.

The weekends are my time I can really sit down and think as sad as that may sound.

 

No problens at all deviate , my eyes ain't working good (had surgery some years back & I go very partially sighted at times , can't fight it,gota rest awhile) all in yor're own good time . Don't work too hard W

 

Is there really someone who wants their own ICBM?

I think the second amendment applies to sidearms, handguns, pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc., and not RPG's, land mines, or tanks, stealth aircraft, ICBM's, etc.

 

While I'm still trying to grasp the relevance of foreign aid as a percentage of GDP in a discussion of the 2nd amendment, it would be a great topic worthy of being discussed on its own. After all, does anyone really understand what the GDP actually represents? But that's not an answer we're seeking in this threads topic. These forums need reasoned and rational moderation, keeping them on topic and working towards achieving some agreement where little if any is currently found if we're looking to resolve U.S. government problems to everyones satisfaction. And as long as we're not imposing U.S. solutions to government of British, European, or other nations around the world, they remain free to impose what ever they wish upon their citizens, democratically or otherwise. As I have traveled around the world and within the U.S. I have not always agreed with the laws that exist where I happened to be, but respected them as I was a guest and only a temporary member of their societies free to remain as long as I obeyed the laws and free to leave should I find any laws unacceptable in ways that I could not legally circumvent. Where I currently live, by law I must have government approval to work, and not liking to sit idle, I am allowed to legally circumvent that law by simply not receiving any monetary form of payment in return for any work I do. While gun laws are quite strict, they too can be gotten around although not if you employ them in a criminal way. Over the last 2 decades there has been 2 crimes committed in the society I am a member of, one of which was directed at me in the form of a house break in 3 nights in a row, and although I could have used a gun, I found it unnecessary, and on the second break in I apprehended the perpetrator, incapacitated him, and located his family who I then turned him over to. His 3rd attempt resulted in my bringing in the police from the nearest town which had a police department, and they sent him to jail far away from our village for a few years, although when they questioned what I wanted, all I asked was for him to apologize and promise not to repeat his act again. In the end he spent the several years in jail, and returned to the village to live with his family and I believe became drug free while imprisoned, and has caused no problems since, over 3 years now.

Had he been armed with a weapon, I might have made use of a gun, and the police assured me that if ever in the future, under circumstances where I felt my life threatened, they would take no action against me. This is in an Asian country where I feel my freedoms are often more easily exercised than in the U.S. today. I would have to travel a great distance to reach the location where a capital crime had been committed, and that would be in a more densely populated city. Small societies are most always more peaceful and the only time national politics is given any attention at all is just prior to elections when the politicians usually come around and hand out some cash money or some other items of value in an attempt to purchase votes. At least here they are quite direct and open about it.

Guns are quite common here, AK's, pistols, automatic and revolvers, shotguns, and homemade, and although illegal by law, the law comes into effect only when they are misused, and applicable only to the individual who broke the law. The only killings that have taken place have been in the forest area where drugs were found to be moved in route to the more populated areas avoiding the roads, and though infrequent, acceptable to all, and carried out by the military and/or the police brought in from the city.

 

I think GHWB was born in Mass., but Jeb is the only politician Bush born in Texas I'm aware of. Although I wouldn't rank any of the Bush's highly politically, I wouldn't claim #41 or #43 to have been the worst President ever, but only slightly above Carter.

If we are ranking worst Presidents, the names who come quickly to mind are W Wilson, FD Roosevelt, LB Johnson, J Carter, and B Obama, as the ones who with the exception of Carter have left, or are leaving consequences which only compound over time.

 

Deviate

But again the problem with past and present – Britain was a very imperialistic country because the people that ruled it were imperialistic, this may have been because they reaped most of the benefits of imperialism.
But most lefties have always been opposed to imperialism, because leftie are usually internationalism in viewpoint, ‘workers of the world unite’ and all that.

And my ancestors fought the ‘English’, because they were Scots while on the other side of my family fought the ‘English’ because they were Norman, and another fought the ‘British’ because they were Viking and so on, the thing is that since I was born in England, I’m English and a British citizen.
But that is an accident of birth, I’m a conscious thinking human I’m I’ve decided that I’m a human being like other human beings in the US, China or anywhere else in the world.
As you readily admit the US has problems, what I’m trying to work out is why so many Americans don’t want to tackle those problems but seemingly want to make things worse?

 

The NRA is sponsoring a NASCAR race this weekend. They call it the NRA 500. Just think of all the guns that will be in the stands. Just think of what could happen if NASCAR tries to stop them from bringing them in. This could be fun to watch. Race cars, guns and beer. Now there's some down home redneck fun.