PDA

View Full Version : Just a thing to think about


Obese Penguin
03-31-2011, 5:58 PM
In the Constitution, it clearly states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The dictionary.com definition of infringed:
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress

So, with that in mind, aren't all the gun control laws infringing on our right to keep and bear Arms? And since it is illegal to infringe our Constitutional rights, doesn't that make EVERY SINGLE gun law unconstitutional?

Maltese Falcon
03-31-2011, 6:01 PM
Yes.

.

putput
03-31-2011, 6:01 PM
Short answer? No

Long Answer? Law School.

stix213
03-31-2011, 6:03 PM
In the Constitution, it clearly states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The dictionary.com definition of infringed:
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress

So, with that in mind, aren't all the gun control laws infringing on our right to keep and bear Arms? And since it is illegal to infringe our Constitutional rights, doesn't that make EVERY SINGLE gun law unconstitutional?

If only.... Unfortunately the state will (undoubtedly successfully) argue that certain regulations don't amount to infringements. I might even agree assuming I can carry a loaded firearm wherever I want, which I currently can't due to county policy.

beauregard
03-31-2011, 6:03 PM
It seems our constitution has become a rough guideline for legislators.

Vacaville
03-31-2011, 6:05 PM
Yes, they are all unconsitutional. It is that simple and does not require a law degree.

Dreaded Claymore
03-31-2011, 6:17 PM
Eugene Volokh says "No."

John Lott, then Eugene Volokh, at the 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference (audio) (http://proarmspodcast.com/2010/10/20/gun-rights-policy-conference-2010-04/)

There are libel laws, and those are constitutional. So are a few gun laws.

Shotgun Man
03-31-2011, 6:36 PM
The gov violating our constitutional rights-- Imagine that.

CaliforniaLiberal
03-31-2011, 6:38 PM
In the Constitution, it clearly states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The dictionary.com definition of infringed:
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress

So, with that in mind, aren't all the gun control laws infringing on our right to keep and bear Arms? And since it is illegal to infringe our Constitutional rights, doesn't that make EVERY SINGLE gun law unconstitutional?


It is necessary that all gun owners educate themselves in the law enough to answer this excellent question. We live under a system of law more complex than your question supposes. If every citizen were able to declare laws unconstitutional we would have no law at all. Our system of laws is pretty good, it provides fairness and justice most of the time. It can change, although it seldom changes quickly.

Be patient. Get informed.

NoJoke
03-31-2011, 6:49 PM
It is necessary that all gun owners educate themselves in the law enough to answer this excellent question.............

Get informed.

Why so mysterious?
Why the hold out?

Constitution seems pretty black and white to me. In fact, it seems to have been written to circumvent all this complexity you mention. :confused:

BKinzey
03-31-2011, 6:52 PM
So then do you believe when you are arrested you can take arms with you?

When you are put in jail your arms are with you?

During your trial you are armed?

When convicted you take yor arms to prison?

That's not something I need to think about. Do you?

ZombieTactics
03-31-2011, 6:59 PM
Short answer: MOST of the gun laws which limit ownership, possession, etc. of firearms would be considered not only "unconstitutional" (by the framers), but grounds for being brought up on charges of treason.

Of course if you go to law school long enough, or become a judge, you seem to be endowed with the power to redefine up as down, left as right and the 2A somehow only covering a "collective right" for " sporting purposes".

Legasat
03-31-2011, 7:07 PM
My opinion is Yes, and the only reason the legal answer is no, is because judges have redefined what certain words mean, and what the intention was.

When you apply the original context, it becomes crystal clear (at least to me), what the original intention was.

Librarian
03-31-2011, 7:32 PM
So then do you believe when you are arrested you can take arms with you?

When you are put in jail your arms are with you?

During your trial you are armed?

When convicted you take yor arms to prision?

That's not something I need to think about. Do you?

My opinion is Yes, and the only reason the legal answer is no, is because judges have redefined what certain words mean, and what the intention was.

When you apply the original context, it becomes crystal clear (at least to me), what the original intention was.

BKinzey provides the obvious counter example - there are conditions where the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms no longer applies.

So the question becomes 'if there is ONE exception, how many are there, what are they, and under what circumstances may those exceptions be applied?'

Recently, the test has been mostly 'does the government have a compelling interest?', that is, 'strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)' in the courts.

You can argue about the application of it if you like, but one counter example disproves the absolute nature of 'shall not be infringed'.

biochembruin
03-31-2011, 7:47 PM
Why so mysterious?
Why the hold out?

Constitution seems pretty black and white to me. In fact, it seems to have been written to circumvent all this complexity you mention. :confused:
If it's so black and white, why doesn't the 2nd Amendment mention the word "gun?"

ZombieTactics
03-31-2011, 8:12 PM
If it's so black and white, why doesn't the 2nd Amendment mention the word "gun?"
Because it was assumed by the framers that anyone with half a brain would recognize the term "arms", in the same sense that 1A mentions nothing specifically about "printing" ... dig?

hoffmang
03-31-2011, 8:16 PM
More from Professor Volokh: http://volokh.com/2010/07/19/shall-not-be-infringed/

I disagree with his analysis on certain edge cases, but on the core issues here he is spot on.

-Gene

scarville
03-31-2011, 8:34 PM
So, with that in mind, aren't all the gun control laws infringing on our right to keep and bear Arms? And since it is illegal to infringe our Constitutional rights, doesn't that make EVERY SINGLE gun law unconstitutional?
Yes but there is a world of difference between what the law and the Constitution say and what finally emerges from the system.

N6ATF
03-31-2011, 8:39 PM
It seems our constitution has become a rough guideline for legislators.

Or a list of things to violate 24/7/365 with impunity.

biochembruin
03-31-2011, 9:01 PM
Because it was assumed by the framers that anyone with half a brain would recognize the term "arms", in the same sense that 1A mentions nothing specifically about "printing" ... dig?

It always amazes me how people born 200 years after the Framers know exactly what they were thinking.

Don29palms
03-31-2011, 9:11 PM
INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep


Again my view is that any gun control law is unconstitutional.

Librarian
03-31-2011, 9:36 PM
INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep


Again my view is that any gun control law is unconstitutional.

Please read the Volokh article linked in Gene's post. Historically, the answer courts have generally given is that “reasonable regulations” of the right to bear arms aren’t infringements, while “prohibitions” are infringements. That of course just pushes the problem back to the question of what’s a reasonable regulation and what’s a prohibition (or an unreasonable regulation); and I think the courts have sometimes found gun restrictions to be “reasonable regulations” when they should have struck down the restrictions as excessively burdening — and therefore infringing — the right. But I mention the historical answer because it suggests that American law has long recognized that not all restrictions are infringements; and my sense is that it is consistent with much of the thinking of the Framing era, in which (for instance) many kinds of restrictions on speech were seen as permissible reasonable regulations.

Cobrafreak
03-31-2011, 9:52 PM
Although I am a legally minded person, following the law, the more I grow older the more I recognize "law" as not being the all infallible wall as I used to. I now see things as "moral or immoral". Because other people in high office say and believe and dictate one way does not make it an absolute anymore for me. I have a higher praise for my personal moral compass than I for laws that I had no say in. It's MY life and I know what is right and what is wrong. California politics is a joke plain and simple. We MUST either win the legal battles or leave this God forsaken State and go where they actually allow freedom. Life is too short for stupid binding laws that constrain liberty.

GettoPhilosopher
03-31-2011, 10:34 PM
I just enjoyed the mental image of walking before the Supremes and starting with "Your Honors, Dictionary.com clearly states....".

Alright, carry on. It was a funny mental image, and I'm not trying to mock anyone. :P

vantec08
04-01-2011, 5:03 AM
It is necessary that all gun owners educate themselves in the law enough to answer this excellent question. We live under a system of law more complex than your question supposes. If every citizen were able to declare laws unconstitutional we would have no law at all. Our system of laws is pretty good, it provides fairness and justice most of the time. It can change, although it seldom changes quickly.

Be patient. Get informed.

We ARE informed . . . . The CONUS was designed and drafted for average people to understand.

CaliforniaLiberal
04-01-2011, 5:29 AM
We ARE informed . . . . The CONUS was designed and drafted for average people to understand.


You are NOT informed. Life is not as simple as you would have it. There is work to be done and it does no one any good to claim that thousands of anti-gun laws are no longer valid "Because Me and the Constitution say so."

The Constitution is not the totality of law in the United States nor in California. It's silly to say that it is. There is the little thing of two hundred years of everyday use, stupid legislators passing stupid laws, court battles, court rulings, precedents, and over rulings and (yes) interpretations of the Constitution.

We are in the process of changing long held legal beliefs and practices. It is not to be done with a wave of the hand and by loudly and repeatedly claiming that everyone now has to follow your interpretation of the Constitution. Saying that our system of laws is not valid does not make it so. We have to roll up our sleeves and get to work changing the laws. And it's going to take a while.

I share your goal of restoring 2nd Amendment rights to all citizens and to rid ourselves of many years of unjust and (yes) unconstitutional state and federal gun law.

You will not reach this goal by merely proclaiming "I've read the Constitution and THAT'S Unconstitutional!"

Andy Taylor
04-01-2011, 7:00 AM
If it's so black and white, why doesn't the 2nd Amendment mention the word "gun?"

Because "arm" is a more inclusive term than "gun". The framers meant to include weapons other than just guns. A sword is an "arm". A club is an "arm". Certainly guns, or more properly, firearms, are "arms". But so are a lot of other things.

Andy Taylor
04-01-2011, 7:09 AM
California Liberal-I to believe that better than 99% of gun laws are unconstitutional. I don't believe that anyone is saying. "Well it's unconstitutional. That's all there is to it" We know we have a fight to get laws/rulings/etc back into line with the constitution.

Don29palms
04-01-2011, 7:19 AM
Please read the Volokh article linked in Gene's post.

I did read it and I completely disagree. An infringement is just that whether it is "reasonable" or not. That is the whole point. The 2A doesn't say shall not be infringed except for reasonable restrictions.

cmichini
04-01-2011, 8:05 AM
I see your first conceptual mistake.

That is that politicians have anything but complete disdain and contempt for the constitution.

Be the demo-rat (2A) or republi-goon (Patriot Act) they all see the people as subjects and funding mechanisms that only get in the way of their objective to enrich themselves, their friends and to swaddle them all in the trappings of power.

JMO

Wherryj
04-01-2011, 8:40 AM
It seems our constitution has become a rough guideline for legislators.

I'd say that it is considered more of an inconvenient obstacle to our legislators.

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 8:53 AM
It always amazes me how people born 200 years after the Framers know exactly what they were thinking. It amazes me that people who haven't read much of the framers own words are quick to make such criticisms. It's also amazing to me that people sitting on SCOTUS are willfully ignorant of the very history and surrounding philosophy of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. So it seems there is enough "amazement" potential to go around.

There is no great "mystery" surrounding the 2A, and what it was intended to mean by those who actually wrote it. It requires no "mind reading" or psychic ability. You don't have to guess what they were thinking, as they wrote down their own thoughts on the matter. Understanding their plain meaning is no more complicated than having reasonably good reading comprehension skills, and perhaps a smattering of research into 18th century idiom. I've yet to see a single person holding to a fuzzy interpretation of the 2A support that notion with anything other than broad conjecture or historical revisionism. They'll especially avoid any references to Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Jay, etc. quite strenuously ... as it's impossible to find references from such supporting their nonsense.

GettoPhilosopher
04-01-2011, 9:05 AM
BKinzey provides the obvious counter example - there are conditions where the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms no longer applies.

So the question becomes 'if there is ONE exception, how many are there, what are they, and under what circumstances may those exceptions be applied?'

Recently, the test has been mostly 'does the government have a compelling interest?', that is, 'strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)' in the courts.

You can argue about the application of it if you like, but one counter example disproves the absolute nature of 'shall not be infringed'.

Exactly. Alright, so I was mocking people a teeny bit when I posted before, but that was kind of the point....the legal system--ANY legal system--is not and cannot be as simple as "Your Honor, Dictionary.com clearly states....". Infringement does not equal a lack of any regulation or restriction at all. There are reasonable limitations on free speech. There are reasonable limitations on privacy, on search and seizure, on property rights, etc, etc, etc. No one in their right mind should think that the 2A protects your right to pack a Saiga 12 in the squad car on your way to prison.

That is exactly why CA's legal battles are so important. Because the "your honor, the 2nd Amendment states 'shall not be infringed', and that's why I conceal carried my unregistered SBR through a school zone without a permit, so deal with it you unconstitutional jerkoff" cases/arguments don't accomplish a friggin thing. We're trying to set precedent that'll outlast the current political climate, precedent that'll clearly enumerate the reasonable restrictions allowed, which aren't allowed, and what exactly the 2A protects.

What I'm trying to fight for is an equal playing field for all the fundamental rights. I want to see the 2A enshrined as a right so important, so fundamental, and so revered that we only restrict it with fear and trembling. I want to see court cases like the SCOTUS ruling on the Westboro Baptist "church"...."Well, we can all agree that this is utterly reprehensible bull***t, but the 1st Amendment is so fundamental, foundational, and important that we don't believe it's lawful to restrict their protests". When the level of scrutiny is set so high for the 2A that only proven, narrowly tailored, clearly necessary gun laws can pass, then I'll be happy.

CalBear
04-01-2011, 9:13 AM
Some of the laws may be Constitutional. Many of the laws simply are not. IMO, there's a clear separation between the laws courts, including SCOTUS, are ruling Constitutional these days and the ones that actually are. I think some of the laws they've called Constitutional are grotesque and are clearly not Constitutional.

steel-cut
04-01-2011, 11:49 AM
It seems our constitution has become a rough guideline Toilet paper for legislators.

Fixed it for you. :eek:

Sorry for the temporary thread-jack. We know return you to the regularly scheduled program.

Don29palms
04-01-2011, 12:05 PM
Some of the laws may be Constitutional. Many of the laws simply are not. IMO, there's a clear separation between the laws courts, including SCOTUS, are ruling Constitutional these days and the ones that actually are. I think some of the laws they've called Constitutional are grotesque and are clearly not Constitutional.

I agree. There might be laws that are for the public safety but California and other staes have gone way beyond that. Also using the excuse of public safety some of the unconstitutional laws known as "reasonable restrictions" that have been passed have actually put law abiding citizens in danger.

ALSystems
04-01-2011, 12:41 PM
Although I am a legally minded person, following the law, the more I grow older the more I recognize "law" as not being the all infallible wall as I used to. I now see things as "moral or immoral". Because other people in high office say and believe and dictate one way does not make it an absolute anymore for me. I have a higher praise for my personal moral compass than I for laws that I had no say in. It's MY life and I know what is right and what is wrong. California politics is a joke plain and simple. We MUST either win the legal battles or leave this God forsaken State and go where they actually allow freedom. Life is too short for stupid binding laws that constrain liberty.
:iagree:
The text and intent of the 2nd Amendment is clear enough to most of us.

The problem is when you have "unreasonable" people try to change it by redefining the basic meaning or component parts of it until it becomes something completely different. Lawyers are good at this.

Lots of people are fuzzy thinkers who can not rationally or logically discuss an issue. This usually doesn't matter. However, fuzzy thinking judges have a way of imposing their views on the rest of us.

scarville
04-01-2011, 2:05 PM
Please read the Volokh article linked in Gene's post.
I think you may be missing the point.

I am one of the the most ardent supporter of the Second Amendment you are likely to meet. However, I do not argue there should be no laws regarding the the misuse of arms. Nor will I argue that someone who misuses arms cannot have his rights disabled for the periods of a sentence consistent with the Eighth Amendment. That is just scarecrow crap from the retardo zone. The disconnect between me and the legal eagles is that the Constitution -- ostensibly the highest law of the land -- clearly states "shall not be infringed" but the lawyers tell me, in effect, that a prior restraint on a peaceable action is not an infringement if a properly blessed member of the secular priesthood can convince five of nine that it is really only a "reasonable restriction".

I am not a lawyer but I do know how to read and the Constitution is as much mine as it is yours. It is not the exclusive playground for lawyers nor is the Bill of Rights a country club where its protections are available only to those wealthy enough to buy them.

rugershooter
04-01-2011, 2:33 PM
My opinion is Yes, and the only reason the legal answer is no, is because judges have redefined what certain words mean, and what the intention was.

When you apply the original context, it becomes crystal clear (at least to me), what the original intention was.

This. If the 2A is ever actually recognized as a right rather than a privilge, people might come around to that point of view. But until then, we have to suffer under the gun laws. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me. I ascribe to the old school legal thinking; that a law should be simple enough be be understood by the common man otherwise it shouldn't be valid. We common people are the ones who are bound by laws we didn't write, we should be able to undertand them without a law degree.

Librarian
04-01-2011, 2:34 PM
I think you may be missing the point.

I am one of the the most ardent supporter of the Second Amendment you are likely to meet. However, I do not argue there should be no laws regarding the the misuse of arms. Nor will I argue that someone who misuses arms cannot have his rights disabled for the periods of a sentence consistent with the Eighth Amendment. That is just scarecrow crap from the retardo zone. The disconnect between me and the legal eagles is that the Constitution -- ostensibly the highest law of the land -- clearly states "shall not be infringed" but the lawyers tell me, in effect, that a prior restraint on a peaceable action is not an infringement if a properly blessed member of the secular priesthood can convince five of nine that it is really only a "reasonable restriction".

I am not a lawyer but I do know how to read and the Constitution is as much mine as it is yours. It is not the exclusive playground for lawyers nor is the Bill of Rights a country club where its protections are available only to those wealthy enough to buy them.

No, I don't think I am.

But I think we disagree on some basic issues, and likely may not converge our opinions.

Principally, 'unconstitutional' is a word thrown about by many who just don't like something.

Wrong, that 'something' may be. Illogical, perhaps. But in my opinion, the burden of showing a thing is 'unconstitutional' in any meaningful sense - by which I mean as a guide to future legislative and judicial behavior - requires an appreciation of and an analysis of the entirety of the structure provided by that guiding document.

Read the Volokh article and the 107 page paper he links. Read the Reynolds/Denning paper that was released today (link in another thread). Read the amicus briefs for Heller (http://dcguncase.com/blog/) and McDonald (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/). I find those persuasive. You may not.

jtmkinsd
04-01-2011, 2:44 PM
No, they are not all unconstitutional. Just like you cannot exercise your right to free speech by yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theatre, it is not unconstitutional to reasonably regulate firearm ownership/possession.

Under the premis that all gun laws are unconstitutional, a person who is wildly unstable mentally (and has been found as such by a court), and who has threatened to kill as many people as is possible could purchase a firearm. Is that something you wish to propose?

rugershooter
04-01-2011, 2:52 PM
No, they are not all unconstitutional. Just like you cannot exercise your right to free speech by yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theatre, it is not unconstitutional to reasonably regulate firearm ownership/possession.

Under the premis that all gun laws are unconstitutional, a person who is wildly unstable mentally (and has been found as such by a court), and who has threatened to kill as many people as is possible could purchase a firearm. Is that something you wish to propose?

Who decides what is "reasonable"? In CA apparently it's reasonable to restrict "assault weapons" and many other guns because it's "reasonable" to not allow certain people to own them. Is it reasonable to ban all rifles except single shot break action rifles?

scarville
04-01-2011, 3:47 PM
No, they are not all unconstitutional. Just like you cannot exercise your right to free speech by yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theatre, it is not unconstitutional to reasonably regulate firearm ownership/possession.
What if there is a fire?

The prohibition is that you cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. It distinguishes between speech that is dangerous and false and speech that is dangerous but true. A distinction that seems to escape many self styled Second Amendment supporters. It is also of note that the phrase was (probably) first used in the sick puppy decision Schenck v. United States (later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio -- mostly) that upheld the conviction of Charles Schenck for distributing fliers opposing the draft during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court found that to be a reasonable restriction on the First Amendment.

Don29palms
04-01-2011, 3:51 PM
Nowhere in the 1A does it say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED or am I missing something.

753X0
04-01-2011, 4:07 PM
Nowhere in the 1A does it say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED or am I missing something.
THIS.
Nowhere in any other amendment is this language used. The 2A must be viewed from a unique perspective, because the language memorializing the right is unique. Arguments about the 1A, et al, are irrelevant. Or, immaterial...

fiddletown
04-01-2011, 4:12 PM
Nowhere in the 1A does it say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED or am I missing something.The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."(emphasis added)

"....no law...abridging..." is pretty much the functional equivalent to "not be infringed."

In any case, on one hand some folks seem to believe in alternate universes. On the other hand, guys like Alan Gura and Gene Volokh live in and deal with the real world (as do Gene Hoffman, Librarian and some others who have posted in this thread).

But all of us, even those who prefer their alternate realities, have no choice but to live in the real world. So we will need to achieve our purposes as best we can in the real world, on real world terms according to real world rules.

jtmkinsd
04-01-2011, 5:04 PM
Circular arguments over what different words mean helps nobody. Some people believe "arms" means they should be able to own Abrams tanks with the delux anti aircraft option. It ain't never going to happen. As to what "reasonable" means, well, quite frankly that is up to the politicians we elect to represent us and the judiciary.

I don't make the rules...just try to make a living within them.

Hopalong
04-01-2011, 5:45 PM
Well the Constitution also says that there are nine people

Who are appointed to decide these matters

They've got decades of schooling and experience

They are supposedly the consumate professionals in these areas

And they can't agree.

So it seems moot to argue it here.

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 5:58 PM
The giant difficulty is establishing "reasonable" can be solved (IMHO) by recognizing that others have rights which must be respected. Jefferson and Madison were clear in the respect that they intended the 2A to establish a right of "free men", which not coincidentally meant women as well in actual intent and practice. They certainly never established the 2A as "the supreme right above all others".

A convict in jail, or even someone under arrest is by definition "not free", nor is a parolee. By this understanding, it's certainly "reasonable" to restrict their access to arms.

People have other rights. They have a right to be free from force or threat of force. They have a right to ply their trade and conduct their business openly and freely in a civil manner. They have a right to their own property, and to control its use and disposition. There are cases where exercising 2A rights would materially infringe upon these other rights. Those cases are those where limitations of some kind may make "reasonable" sense.

The problem in all of this is that all governments by their nature attempt to arrogate to themselves as much power as they can, by whatever means they can. As such, I am with Jefferson: the problems associated with too much liberty as much more desirable than those of having too little.

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 6:03 PM
Well the Constitution also says that there are nine people

Who are appointed to decide these matters

They've got decades of schooling and experience

They are supposedly the consumate professionals in these areas

And they can't agree.

So it seems moot to argue it here.

If 9 appointed "Supreme Mathematicians" get together, and 4 of them decide that pi is equal to "exactly 3" ... those 4 are idiots regardless of how many decades of schooling they have. The argument is only moot if you consider such so-called "professionals" your masters, and that you have no right, ability or duty to think for yourself. Intellectual laziness and corruption should be called by their proper names. A fool on the Supreme Court is no less a fool as such, and arguably worse.

hornswaggled
04-01-2011, 6:28 PM
Preaching to the choir, OP.

fiddletown
04-01-2011, 6:30 PM
The giant difficulty is establishing "reasonable" can be solved (IMHO) by recognizing that others have rights which must be respected....Whatever you might think, as the courts work out what regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment are and are not permissible, they will no doubt do so using well settled principles and examine the regulation in question in terms of the governmental interest furthered, testing it under either intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny. The real question is, and the real fights will be about, what level of scrutiny applies.



Well the Constitution also says that there are nine people

Who are appointed to decide these matters

They've got decades of schooling and experience

They are supposedly the consumate professionals in these areas

And they can't agree.

So it seems moot to argue it here.
If 9 "mathematicians" get together, and 4 of them decide that pi is equal to "exactly 3" ... those 4 are idiots regardless of how many decades of schooling they have. The argument is only moot if you consider such so-called "professionals" your masters, and that you have no right, ability or duty to think for yourself. Intellectual cowardice should be called by its proper name. Phooey!

[1] Holy straw-man, Batman. When you've found nine (or four) bona fide mathematicians who have done so, let us all know.

[2] The nine folks to whom Hopalong alludes have been given the authority to decide these things by the Constitution:

"Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ....

"Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ...."(Constitution of the United States, Article III)

[3] And while you may be free to think whatever you like, what you might think about the constitutionality of a law doesn't really mean anything in the real world. The opinion of a court on a matter of law, including the constitutionality of a law, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

jtmkinsd
04-01-2011, 6:34 PM
$2 :confused:

That doesn't even pay the healthcare portion of their coffee :p

fiddletown
04-01-2011, 6:40 PM
$2 :confused:

That doesn't even pay the healthcare portion of their coffee :pActually, around here you can get a tall Pike Place for only $1.50.

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 6:45 PM
Whatever you might think, as the courts work out what regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment are and are not permissible, they will no doubt do so using well settled principles and examine the regulation in question in terms of the governmental interest furthered, testing it under either intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny. The real question is, and the real fights will be about, what level of scrutiny applies.

No, the real question is whether we will - as a people - see to it that better minds are appointed to SCOTUS.

[1] Holy straw-man, Batman. When you've found nine (or four) bona fide mathematicians who have done so, let us all know. You mistake an analogy for a straw-man argument. I submit that SCOTUS judges have often enough held to ideas no less silly on their face.

[2] The nine folks to whom Hopalong alludes have been given the authority to decide these things by the Constitution: No man has the "authority" to redefine up as down. This is why some rights are called "unalienable" ... unless you suggest that is just another word subject redefinition at the whim of someone wearing a robe. That some men arrogate to themselves such authority makes it no more so.

...

[3] And while you may be free to think whatever you like, what you might think about the constitutionality of a law doesn't really mean anything in the real world. The opinion of a court on a matter of law, including the constitutionality of a law, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
All the more reason why these kinds of discussions are worth more than you suggest. The ultimate power rests with the people. If the people are content with the kind of passivity you seem to suggest they should exhibit, they'll get the government they deserve as a result.

I have no illusions to being anything more than one man. Don't suggest I should accept rights less than those granted by nature or nature's God. I respect that you are focussed only on that which is practical and immediate. Grant me the same courtesy for engaging the subject at the level of enduring principles.

Librarian
04-01-2011, 7:08 PM
All the more reason why these kinds of discussions are worth more than you suggest. The ultimate power rests with the people. If the people are content with the kind of passivity you seem to suggest they should exhibit, they'll get the government they deserve as a result.


Here I very much agree.

If the structure we want to accept - the Constitution - sets up certain responsibilities and powers among representatives, it's up to us to elect people who support the use of those powers as delimited.

If we do that, then the set of appointed servants - primarily judges, in this discussion, but also bureaucrats - will be properly investigated and evaluated by the elected officials with the power to appoint, and the elected representatives with the power to 'advise and consent'.

The structure also allows the election of fools and charlatans and the corrupt.

I used to have most of this bit from Federalist 51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm) in my .sig If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.Madison was a smart guy.

fiddletown
04-01-2011, 7:32 PM
Whatever you might think, as the courts work out what regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment are and are not permissible, they will no doubt do so using well settled principles and examine the regulation in question in terms of the governmental interest furthered, testing it under either intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny. The real question is, and the real fights will be about, what level of scrutiny applies.
No, the real question is whether we will - as a people - see to it that better minds are appointed to SCOTUS.In real world terms, the immediate question is as I've stated it. And yes, we of course want better federal judges. We need to elect better Presidents and Members of Congress to get them.


[1] Holy straw-man, Batman. When you've found nine (or four) bona fide mathematicians who have done so, let us all know.
You mistake an analogy for a straw-man argument. I submit that SCOTUS judges have often enough held to ideas no less silly on their face. Well if it's just an analogy, it's not a very good or apt one.

...No man has the "authority" to redefine up as down. This is why some rights are called "unalienable" ... unless you suggest that is just another word subject redefinition at the whim of someone wearing a robe. That some men arrogate to themselves such authority makes it no more so....And how does all of that translate to practical action in the real world?


[3] And while you may be free to think whatever you like, what you might think about the constitutionality of a law doesn't really mean anything in the real world. The opinion of a court on a matter of law, including the constitutionality of a law, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
All the more reason why these kinds of discussions are worth more than you suggest. The ultimate power rests with the people. If the people are content with the kind of passivity you seem to suggest they should exhibit, they'll get the government they deserve as a result.

I have no illusions to being anything more than one man. Don't suggest I should accept rights less than those granted by nature or nature's God. I respect that you are focussed only on that which is practical and immediate. Grant me the same courtesy for engaging the subject at the level of enduring principles. I lost interest over 40 years ago in midnight dorm room bull sessions. My interest and focus throughout my career has been achieving real things in the real world.

And nowhere have I suggested passivity. The strides that have been made in the last twenty years -- such as the spread of "shall-issue CCW laws, the sunset of the AWB, and the successes we have achieved in court -- have not been the product of passivity. But they have been products of an activism firmly grounded in the realities of our political and legal systems.

You of course are free to do and think as you choose. But I remain free to comment. And in my view, fuzzy fourth level consciousness thinking is not helpful to our efforts to preserve and further the RKBA.

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 8:47 PM
In real world terms, the immediate question is as I've stated it. And yes, we of course want better federal judges. We need to elect better Presidents and Members of Congress to get them. No, rather your immediate concern is as you've stated it. Good for you ... you have an opinion. I don't recall where anyone appointed you to decide for the rest of us what THE concern is. I am concerned both with immediate effects and how ideas lead to realities. You seem to believe that buildings are OK without foundations. (another analogy ... hope it doesn't throw you) I of the mind that getting our heads straight is a really big deal. You seem to be only concerned with a range of the moment "how do I get what I want" approach. You are welcome to do as you please.

Well if it's just an analogy, it's not a very good or apt one. Your opinion is duly noted. If you demonstrate some reason why I should take it seriously, I'll take note of that as well.

And how does all of that translate to practical action in the real world? If you do not know, it's perhaps futile to attempt to explain it. Some people can only see hammers and nails.

I lost interest over 40 years ago in midnight dorm room bull sessions. My interest and focus throughout my career has been achieving real things in the real world. Good for you. You're a big man ... go buy yourself a beer.

And nowhere have I suggested passivity. The strides that have been made in the last twenty years -- such as the spread of "shall-issue CCW laws, the sunset of the AWB, and the successes we have achieved in court -- have not been the product of passivity. But they have been products of an activism firmly grounded in the realities of our political and legal systems. And they have been firmly rooted as well in clear thinking about what are our rights, and what we have a right to fight for. Any gains made by the antis in their cause have been equally grounded in an understanding of how the system works. If our only concern (and measure of success) is simply a vaguely disguised "might makes right" ... then perhaps we should stop talking about things like "rights" and instead start using the term "demands".

You of course are free to do and think as you choose. But I remain free to comment. And in my view, fuzzy fourth level consciousness thinking is not helpful to our efforts to preserve and further the RKBA. You describe that about which you have constantly demonstrated almost zero understanding "fuzzy". I thank god that the founders were not so inclined, and fully grasped the importance of ideas. Perhaps you simply cannot gracefully accept your own limitations. There is no insult in saying a man has (figuratively) a strong back and a steady hand.

If I have misunderstood you ... perhaps it is best to simply suggest that we've talked past each other and leave it at that.

hoffmang
04-01-2011, 9:00 PM
I thank god that the founders were not so inclined, and fully grasped the importance of ideas. Perhaps you simply cannot gracefully accept your own limitations. There is no insult in saying a man has a strong back and a steady hand.

You mean the founders that passed the Alien and Sedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts) acts? Or were those the founders that fully understood that "No person shall .. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" excluded black people? I guess "no person" didn't really mean "no person" now did it?

Your world is utopian and doesn't resemble the reality that the RKBA actually operates in. Utopian thinking also plagues the other side at least...

-Gene

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 9:12 PM
You mean the founders that passed the Alien and Sedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts) acts? Or were those the founders that fully understood that "No person shall .. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" excluded black people? I guess "no person" didn't really mean "no person" now did it?

Your world is utopian and doesn't resemble the reality that the RKBA actually operates in. Utopian thinking also plagues the other side at least...

C'mon Gene ... that's sloppy and you know it. Nowhere did I suggest moral or intellectual perfection on the part of the founders, only a great concern for ideas. I would not for a minute suggest that they were not as caught in their times as any other man.

I don't know what I have suggested which qualifies as "utopian" other than the notion that ideas matter. Have I really stated anything else? You speak of a RKBA ... a right? Surely at least a rational idea ... maybe of the type suggested by the founders, lies at the very root of that you so effectively argue for? I cannot believe that a mind as subtle as yours would be so bound by the mechanics of the law that its intellectual underpinnings are of no concern to you?

hoffmang
04-01-2011, 9:15 PM
C'mon Gene ... that's sloppy and you know it. Nowhere did I suggest moral or intellectual perfection on the part of the founders, only a great concern for ideas. I would not for a minute suggest that they were as caught in their times as any other man.

I don't know what I have suggested which qualifies as "utopian" other than the notion that ideas matter. You speak of a RKBA ... a right? Surely at least a rational idea ... maybe of the type suggested by the founders, lies at the very root of that you so effectively argue for? I cannot believe that a mind as subtle as yours would be so bound by the mechanics of the law that it's intellectual underpinnings are of no concern to you?

My commentary though appearing directed at you is really directed at multiple posters in this thread. The simple view is even historically incorrect on its face.

The idea of freedom of speech mattered until one party got into power in 1789 and decided it was optional. Checks and balances and power separation matters. Ideas, though very compelling and serving a role in checks and balances matter a lot less than many give them credit for. Execution matters or the idea of "all men are created equal" would have saved us from 1863.

-Gene

fiddletown
04-01-2011, 9:23 PM
And how does all of that translate to practical action in the real world?
If you do not know, it's perhaps futile to attempt to explain it. Some people can only see hammers and nails.A convenient and easy way out.

...Any gains made by the antis in their cause have been equally grounded in an understanding of how the system works....Which is exactly why we need to be more effective than they are.

...I thank god that the founders were not so inclined, and fully grasped the importance of ideas... Actually, our Founding Fathers were eminently practical men who well understood political reality. They gave us such practical and workable constructs as checks and balances and the separation of powers. Their essential practicality and political acumen led us through the Massachusetts Compromise to a ratified Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

What they were able to do is turn ideas into actions -- a foundation of notions into a functional building.

....Don't suggest I should accept rights less than those granted by nature or nature's God....Grant me the same courtesy for engaging the subject at the level of enduring principles....On the other hand, it can be very comforting and superior to turn your attention to what you have selected as enduring principles when you have no accountability or expectation to actually achieve anything. And what to you are enduring principles may not be to the guy next to you on the bus.

We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."

There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go along with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. And these people vote.

We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.

Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.

Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.

How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller and McDonald litigation.

So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.

We're left with opportunities to influence how much. Some things will be doable and somethings will not be reasonably doable.

Hopalong
04-01-2011, 9:26 PM
If 9 appointed "Supreme Mathematicians" get together, and 4 of them decide that pi is equal to "exactly 3" ... those 4 are idiots regardless of how many decades of schooling they have. The argument is only moot if you consider such so-called "professionals" your masters, and that you have no right, ability or duty to think for yourself. Intellectual laziness and corruption should be called by their proper names. A fool on the Supreme Court is no less a fool as such, and arguably worse.
I don't consider anyone my master and I have no problem thinking for myself

I didn't say I agreed, but unlike you, I refuse to rant and rave

And call people names

Because after all is said and done, at the end of the day

These 9 folks, are The Deciders

Not you, or anyone here.

It says so in the Constitution

Which everyone wants to quote, but only when it suits them

Now, you have a vote, as do I.

So exercise your right, the rest is moot.

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 9:29 PM
...The idea of freedom of speech mattered until one party got into power in 1789 and decided it was optional. Checks and balances and power separation matters. Ideas, though very compelling and serving a role in checks and balances matter a lot less than many give them credit for. Execution matters or the idea of "all men are created equal" would have saved us from 1863. ...
Seems to me that you are arguing whether the most "important" part of a house is the foundation, the frame or the roof. Surely they are all required. I'm not sure what good one is without the other myself, but I think I understand the order in which the building must be constructed ... if it's a good construction job.

Don29palms
04-01-2011, 9:33 PM
A convenient and easy way out.

Which is exactly why we need to be more effective than they are.

Actually, our Founding Fathers were eminently practical men who well understood political reality. They gave us such practical and workable constructs as checks and balances and the separation of powers. Their essential practicality and political acumen led us through the Massachusetts Compromise to a ratified Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

What they were able to do is turn ideas into actions -- a foundation of notions into a functional building.

On the other hand, it can be very comforting and superior to turn your attention to what you have selected as enduring principles when you have no accountability or expectation to actually achieve anything. And what to you are enduring principles may not be to the guy next to you on the bus.

We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."

There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go along with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. And these people vote.

We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.

Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.

Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.

How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller and McDonald litigation.

So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.

We're left with opportunities to influence how much. Some things will be doable and somethings will not be reasonably doable.

What a pile of cow manure but I guess it is to be expected from someone in San Francisco!

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 9:39 PM
... What they were able to do is turn ideas into actions -- a foundation of notions into a functional building. I'm glad you got the order of operations right.
...
Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.

Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.

How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller and McDonald litigation.
...
We're left with opportunities to influence how much. Some things will be doable and somethings will not be reasonably doable. I can't find a single thing I disagree with in this last bit of quoted text, and it leads me to believe that the wires are crossed somewhere.Perhaps this is the root of what has become an unnecessarily argument. You might do well to note that I said earlier that I think MOST gun laws are unconstitutional. I certainly never adopted any kind of absolutist position of the kind you seem determined to saddle me with.

ZombieTactics
04-01-2011, 9:42 PM
What a pile of cow manure but I guess it is to be expected from someone in San Francisco! No, there's actually not much to argue with it if you step back a sec and consider. The point of failure in this thread seems to be that some are arguing what the CONUS says, and others what its possible practical applications are, with the word "means" becoming a point of confusion. A little disambiguation could be called for.

fiddletown
04-01-2011, 9:53 PM
What a pile of cow manure but I guess it is to be expected from someone in San Francisco!If you think I'm wrong, you're welcome to submit evidence in support of your contention. Simply calling me wrong is easy, cheap and meaningless.

...I can't find a single thing I disagree with in this last bit of quoted text, and it leads me to believe that the wires are crossed somewhere.Perhaps this is the root of what has become an unnecessarily argument. You might do well to note that I said earlier that I think MOST gun laws are unconstitutional. I certainly never adopted any kind of absolutist position of the kind you seem determined to saddle me with....Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. I'll try harder, as things develop, to look for common ground.

GettoPhilosopher
04-01-2011, 10:01 PM
What a pile of cow manure but I guess it is to be expected from someone in San Francisco!

Alright, I'll be taking that "Rational discussion" card from you now. Feel free to take an "Ad hominem" card on your way out. ;)

C'mon, you can do better than that.

hoffmang
04-02-2011, 12:13 AM
Seems to me that you are arguing whether the most "important" part of a house is the foundation, the frame or the roof. Surely they are all required. I'm not sure what good one is without the other myself, but I think I understand the order in which the building must be constructed ... if it's a good construction job.

But at base it wasn't a good construction job. Lincoln violated the Constitution left and right to right a wrong. Tell me how that was a sound foundation when "3/5's" was a part of that foundation...

Ignoring the actual history is pretty dangerous.

-Gene

JRob
04-02-2011, 1:43 AM
Historically, the answer that law school professors, lawyers, judges, politicians and other anti-freedom pro-government lap-dogs have generally given is that “reasonable regulations” of the right to bear arms aren’t infringements......I mention the historical answer because it suggests that American law school professors, lawyers, judges, politicians and other anti-freedom pro-government lap-dogs have long held that not all restrictions are infringements.

Clearly, we can see and understand that the Founders were too naive, uneducated, uninformed, and impractical to fully understand the phrase "shall not be infringed" and its import and application, and to actually have intended a meaning anything like the plain, unadorned words of the text.

Edited for factual accuracy and facetiousness.

JRob
04-02-2011, 1:52 AM
No, they are not all unconstitutional. Just like you cannot exercise your right to free speech by yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theatre, it is not unconstitutional to reasonably regulate firearm ownership/possession.


Really? Does the 1st Amendment state ANYTHING like "shall not be infringed"? Does it limit just one actor (Congress) or all government / everyone?

So how do you equate non-equal texts??

rugershooter
04-02-2011, 2:24 AM
I think the bottem line is that the 2A isn't recognized as written in the Bill of Rights; "...shall not be infringed" is crystal clear and anyone reading it should be able to understand that.

If the 2A was rewritten to express what it now means under the case law, federal laws, etc, it would be something along the lines of "Non-prohibited persons have the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with laws Congress and the States shall deem reasonable and necessary." That's basically what our gun rights look like today. If people choose to believe that we need reasonable gun control, they have the right to believe that; but don't pretend that the 2nd Amendment is recognized as a protection for our gun rights. It's not, nor has it been for decades.

Besides the "reasonableness" argument for deciding which gun laws are Constitutional, what specific laws are "Constitutional" and why?

scarville
04-02-2011, 9:14 AM
But at base it wasn't a good construction job. Lincoln violated the Constitution left and right to right a wrong. Tell me how that was a sound foundation when "3/5's" was a part of that foundation...
The three-fifths compromise is a good historical example of how compromising principles can get you something in the short run but come back later to cost far more than the original gain. That's a good lesson for Calguns if there really is a desire to build on a solid set of principles for the long term.

If the goal is short term -- Something along the lines of, "Gimme a CCW and Ill go away and stop bothering you." -- then history shows compromise to be a good strategy.
Ignoring the actual history is pretty dangerous.
Exactly.

fiddletown
04-02-2011, 9:23 AM
....If the goal is short term -- Something along the lines of, "Gimme a CCW and Ill go away and stop bothering you." -- then history shows compromise to be a good strategy....Without compromise, there would have been no Constitution and no Bill of Rights.

CaliforniaLiberal
04-02-2011, 10:06 AM
What a pile of cow manure but I guess it is to be expected from someone in San Francisco!


http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Discomfort-Rita-Mae-Brown/dp/0553274465 ??

A great Southern Novel written by a great Southerner.

Cato
04-02-2011, 10:34 AM
It comes down to two camps of thinking:

1) Take the Constitution literally. People should be able to own anything from a Daisy air gun to ICBM.

2) Legislate in the "spirit of the Constitution." Flintlocks are OK for the colonial militia of the 18th century, but the modern American has no business with any firearm. Why do you need a gun anyway? Lock your door at night and let the professionals (LEOs) protect you.

Legasat
04-02-2011, 10:42 AM
In any case, on one hand some folks seem to believe in alternate universes. On the other hand, guys like Alan Gura and Gene Volokh live in and deal with the real world (as do Gene Hoffman, Librarian and some others who have posted in this thread).

I definately place faith in these guys listed above. That's why I'm here, and why I donate to the causes I do. I shouldn't have to, but in this world, I do.

If only I were King of the world.....:eek:

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 11:11 AM
Really? Does the 1st Amendment state ANYTHING like "shall not be infringed"? Does it limit just one actor (Congress) or all government / everyone?

So how do you equate non-equal texts??

If you take the time to read all the posts...you would understand that YES, the first amendment DOES have the same type of verbiage.

The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."(emphasis added)

"....no law...abridging..." is pretty much the functional equivalent to "not be infringed."

ZombieTactics
04-02-2011, 11:31 AM
But at base it wasn't a good construction job. Lincoln violated the Constitution left and right to right a wrong. Tell me how that was a sound foundation when "3/5's" was a part of that foundation...
... I think you are somewhat sidetracking the case. All analogies extend only so far as they extend. In this case I'm only discussing the 2A. That there are various flaws of one kind or another in "other buildings on the campus" is quite another matter, AFAIK.

Your example of Lincoln is an excellent one. Even so, the Constitution itself gives us the means by which we are lawfully able to change the "foundation(s)". It's a dangerous game when any member of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branch attempts to start jackhammering without a permit from the people. If the only requirement for some sort of carte blanche to just "do what I think is good" (by whatever practical means are available) is good intentions ... well, we are probably all aware how that proverbial road is paved and where it leads.

I am glad that we are able to prevail in legal battle. I also have no problem stating directly that we are right, they are wrong ... and that they have done actual violence to the Constitution. Our cause is just, theirs is not, and it's not just "a matter of opinion". There is no contradiction in that position.

hoffmang
04-02-2011, 11:53 AM
If you take the time to read all the posts...you would understand that YES, the first amendment DOES have the same type of verbiage.
And the congress in 1798 made a law (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_74) that abridged the freedom of speech. You should read it to see how terrible it was and how directly it abridged the freedom of speech.


Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, Penalty on libelling the government That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
I'm pretty sure that the bold happens here in off topic about the current President of the United States. This kind of proves that the founders said "make no law" and "abridge the freedom of speech" yet the same guys made a law abridging the freedom of speech. Maybe the definitions are a bit more open to debate than we all want them to be.
I think you are somewhat sidetracking the case. All analogies extend only so far as they extend. In this case I'm only discussing the 2A. That there are various flaws of one kind or another in "other buildings on the campus" is quite another matter, AFAIK.

So tell me how the same issue with the Fifth Amendment doesn't compare exactly to the interpretation of the Second Amendment. How can a slave in a free territory not have the 5th Amendment apply to him. I mean the clear text of the amendment says "no person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." He was deprived of liberty without due process of law. In the 5th Amendment no person meant only white men and liberty meant unless you weren't considered a person. Hence, shall not be infringed may not mean what everyone here would like it to mean.

Is it because it doesn't fit people's world views that they don't want to engage with the fact that a whole lot of the Constitution doesn't exactly mean what we want it to and that fact is easily demonstrable with a little bit more history than they taught you in school?

The good news here is that supermajorities of US Citizens believe that there is some right for the law abiding and sane to own and carry (to some lesser extent) most firearms for self defense, hunting, and other sports. That's far closer to what "shall not be infringed" actually means - whether people like the statement or not.

-Gene

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 12:02 PM
And if kcbrown were here, he'd probably say something along the lines of:
"Well if COTUS doesn't mean what it says, then judges can rule completely the opposite of what it says and be completely justified in doing so."

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 1:09 PM
And the congress in 1798 made a law (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_74) that abridged the freedom of speech. You should read it to see how terrible it was and how directly it abridged the freedom of speech.
-Gene

Oh agreed...the history of Congress and SCOTUS is filled examples of how they trample the "spirit" of the Constitution..."Seperate but equal", "Not participating IS participating", and on and on.

The worst part is they will protect bad law just because they don't want to "offend" the status of the court..."we're never wrong"

gobler
04-02-2011, 1:48 PM
No, they are not all unconstitutional. Just like you cannot exercise your right to free speech by yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater, it is not unconstitutional to reasonably regulate firearm ownership/possession.

This is perhaps the weakest argument. You CAN yell fire in a theater or any where you want as long as the conditions dictate; ie there is a fire.

Under the premise that all gun laws are unconstitutional, a person who is wildly unstable mentally (and has been found as such by a court), and who has threatened to kill as many people as is possible could purchase a firearm. Is that something you wish to propose?

No, this is clearly a case where one is going out of there way to abridge anothers 4th A as well as there life. The Founders had far more common sense then we do these days and figured there would be cases of individuals who would lose there 2nd A rights (in jail for instance). As for the People, it clearly states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 2:13 PM
This is perhaps the weakest argument. You CAN yell fire in a theater or any where you want as long as the conditions dictate; ie there is a fire.

OK...tired of the word play. For those who cannot or refuse to accept context to interpret meaning, I'll spell it out:

You cannot yell "FIRE" in a movie theater when there is in fact no fire.

I sincerely hope this clears up the issue. :rolleyes:


No, this is clearly a case where one is going out of there way to abridge anothers 4th A as well as there life. The Founders had far more common sense then we do these days and figured there would be cases of individuals who would lose there 2nd A rights (in jail for instance). As for the People, it clearly states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!


OK...again with the word play. Disregard the proposed statements. Would you support allowing severely mentally unstable individuals' right to keep and bear arms? If you do, you are in an extreme minority (where you should be) and nothing is ever going to change that.

As much as it is detested to even speak of it around here, there IS such a thing as common sense regulation of firearm acquisition. It looks nothing like what has been put forward as such...but to say it doesn't exist is both futile and counterproductive.

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 2:22 PM
It's not a matter of "allowing severely mentally unstable individuals' right to keep and bear arms" - there is no realistic way to block all, or even more than few of them, short of lifetime institutionalization. So it's really pointless to argue about it, or try to come up with any .gov scheme to block them, since lifetime institutionalization for tens of millions of people would be impossible. The only solution is to drop all the practically useless (to anyone but criminals and the insane) infringements and let the rest of us deter and stop the unlawful violence as it is perpetrated.

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 2:59 PM
It's not a matter of "allowing severely mentally unstable individuals' right to keep and bear arms" - there is no realistic way to block all, or even more than few of them, short of lifetime institutionalization. So it's really pointless to argue about it, or try to come up with any .gov scheme to block them, since lifetime institutionalization for tens of millions of people would be impossible. The only solution is to drop all the practically useless (to anyone but criminals and the insane) infringements and let the rest of us deter and stop the unlawful violence as it is perpetrated.

While I understand the argument, it conjurs too much of the "wild west" imagery. The fact is, with that type of access, innocent people will die. And just a remedial amount of regulation would prevent it...it's useless to try and argue the point, because it is such a core belief...I get that, but the reality is the majority of reasonably thinking people would want to avoid having to "deter and stop" unlawful violence. Common sense dictates there are those who have done nothing illegal, or have and are no longer "in the legal system", and should never have free and unfettered access to firearms. There are extremes to both sides...no guns for anyone...a gun on every hip. The reality lies in the middle.

JRob
04-02-2011, 3:08 PM
There are extremes to both sides...no freedoms for anyone...or freedoms for everyone. The reality lies in the middle - freedoms for the special ones.

different words, same concept

kcbrown
04-02-2011, 3:57 PM
And if kcbrown were here, he'd probably say something along the lines of:
"Well if COTUS doesn't mean what it says, then judges can rule completely the opposite of what it says and be completely justified in doing so."

Pretty much, although I would slightly modify that to say that if SCOTUS doesn't mean what it says, then judges can and will rule completely the opposite and will get away with it. :D

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 3:58 PM
different words, same concept

As I said...word play gets tiring. Under this premise Charlie Manson, if paroled, should be able to go buy guns, because it doesn't mention felons in the 2nd. Or better yet, why not argue prison populations should have RKBA...after all, it's a right that can't be infringed...right? The Constitution doesn't even mention felonies except for treason and felonies committed on the high seas. So there's hope for good ole Charlie. :rolleyes:

kcbrown
04-02-2011, 4:19 PM
And the congress in 1798 made a law (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_74) that abridged the freedom of speech. You should read it to see how terrible it was and how directly it abridged the freedom of speech.


Yes. It was passed by the Federalists.

The Federalists were the very people who wanted a strong central government and who were opposed to the ratification of the Bill of Rights. They grudgingly agreed to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights anyway in order to gain the necessary support of the anti-Federalists (Thomas Jefferson being among the most influential of the anti-Federalists).

As such, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that those same Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, for those were the very people who were arguing that liberty was not something that needed to be explicitly secured. The passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts proved beyond all doubt exactly what their views on liberty really were.


The founders of the country were no different than we are in the breadth of their views, and it is simplistic to argue that they were of one mind about even the most basic principles.


Therefore, when one is referring to the founders with respect to discussion of what the various components of the Bill of Rights mean, as we do here, one is implicitly referring to the anti-Federalists and their viewpoints, for it would be nonsensical, if not outright contradictory, to include the viewpoints of the very people who were opposed to its inclusion in the Constitution.



I'm pretty sure that the bold happens here in off topic about the current President of the United States. This kind of proves that the founders said "make no law" and "abridge the freedom of speech" yet the same guys made a law abridging the freedom of speech. Maybe the definitions are a bit more open to debate than we all want them to be.
No, the problem is not the definitions, the problem is that the guys who passed that law were not the same guys who penned the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was essentially an anti-Federalist creation, and would not be there at all were it not for the insistence of the anti-Federalists that it be put there.

Which is to say, we wouldn't even be talking about how the Alien and Sedition Acts were Unconstitutional had it not been for the actions of the very people who were opposed not only to the ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights (and they recognized that even that was merely a compromise, and not sufficient to secure all our rights. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."), but also to the very Alien and Sedition Acts that you are implying they passed!


The Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as the state of affairs as they are right now, are proof that the anti-Federalists were fundamentally correct. One is left to wonder how things would be now had the anti-Federalists penned the majority of the Constitution.

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 4:52 PM
While I understand the argument, it conjurs too much of the "wild west" imagery. The fact is, with that type of access, innocent people will die. And just a remedial amount of regulation would prevent it...it's useless to try and argue the point, because it is such a core belief...I get that, but the reality is the majority of reasonably thinking people would want to avoid having to "deter and stop" unlawful violence. Common sense dictates there are those who have done nothing illegal, or have and are no longer "in the legal system", and should never have free and unfettered access to firearms. There are extremes to both sides...no guns for anyone...a gun on every hip. The reality lies in the middle.

False imagery, considering violence per capita in the Wild West makes modern times look like the 7th circle of hell. We don't even need a majority of "reasonably thinking people" to want to do anything. Just take away all the criminal safety enabling-prohibitions on the majority of law-abiders, so we can open carry, and deter crime merely by being in condition yellow.

There are plenty of mentally and murder/suicidal people in society who have (and can never have) any barrier to their posession and criminal use of arms, but we hardly see blood running in the streets in places where the right to self-defense is actually respected and the primary, passive tool of deterrence fully utilized.

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 5:06 PM
I agree, to a point. I want to make it clear, if we in CA had gun laws along the lines of what they enjoy in AZ or NH, I would be content (aside from the Lautenberg crap). The idea of "no gun law is constitutional" is what I reject.

Don29palms
04-02-2011, 5:07 PM
To argue that the criminally insane can't buy guns is like saying criminals can't buy guns. They always have and they always will be able to buy guns.

kcbrown
04-02-2011, 5:10 PM
I agree, to a point. I want to make it clear, if we in CA had gun laws along the lines of what they enjoy in AZ or NH, I would be content (aside from the Lautenberg crap). The idea of "no gun law is constitutional" is what I reject.

Well, there are gun laws that I'm sure most of us here would regard as Constitutional. Such as adding mandatory firearms training to the public school curriculum. :43:

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 5:11 PM
To argue that the criminally insane can't buy guns is like saying criminals can't buy guns. They always have and they always will be able to buy guns.

Yes, but the idea is to make it just a little more difficult than walking into the local gun shop.

Don29palms
04-02-2011, 5:11 PM
I agree, to a point. I want to make it clear, if we in CA had gun laws along the lines of what they enjoy in AZ or NH, I would be content (aside from the Lautenberg crap). The idea of "no gun law is constitutional" is what I reject.

Any gun law is a restriction. A restriction is an infringement. Gun control laws are unconstitutional. It's the "Well I guess that's ok" liberal thinking that turns our rights into privileges.

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 5:12 PM
I agree, to a point. I want to make it clear, if we in CA had gun laws along the lines of what they enjoy in AZ or NH, I would be content (aside from the Lautenberg crap). The idea of "no gun law is constitutional" is what I reject.

No gun law (proscription) is constitutional because every last one harms the law-abider as much as it benefits the criminal.

ETA: Prescriptions such as mandatory firearms training in public school training are constitutional, as they harm criminals as much as they benefit law-abiders.

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 5:14 PM
Well, there are gun laws that I'm sure most of us here would regard as Constitutional. Such as adding mandatory firearms training to the public school curriculum. :43:

That's true :D

It's a shame...but that's what the civilian marksmanship program and the boy/girl scouts used to do for us...but it's hard to even get enough people to show up at the matches.

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 5:18 PM
No gun law (proscription) is constitutional because every last one harms the law-abider as much as it benefits the criminal.

While I respect your opinion, I can't agree. It opens all the ridiculous examples set forth above...violent criminals, prisoners, anyone having free and unfettered access to walk into a retail shop and walk out a couple minutes later armed to the teeth. It's just ridiculous IMHO.

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 5:20 PM
Only if you assume that gun shop owners are more evil than kitchen supply store owners. They have the right and ability to choose to refuse service to ANYONE.

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 5:43 PM
Only if you assume that gun shop owners are more evil than kitchen supply store owners. They have the right and ability to choose to refuse service to ANYONE.

And how would they know they are selling to someone who is wanted in seven states?

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 5:47 PM
With such an extremely obvious example, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_by_the_fbi

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 6:15 PM
With such an extremely obvious example, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_by_the_fbi

So you would rather the shop owner assume the liability...thanks, but no thanks. I shudder to think of the wrongful death/negligent homicide/wreckless endangerment/felony murder and so on litigation/charges I'd be subjected to. Currently, I left click on "submit", and I've done my due diligence, and that's just fine by me.

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 6:57 PM
So you would rather the shop owner assume the liability...thanks, but no thanks. I shudder to think of the wrongful death/negligent homicide/wreckless endangerment/felony murder and so on litigation/charges I'd be subjected to. Currently, I left click on "submit", and I've done my due diligence, and that's just fine by me.

Then don't shudder about charges and liability that would not be held against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

fiddletown
04-02-2011, 6:59 PM
Having come back to this thread after being out and about, I see that the usual suspects (Don29palms, N6ATF, kcbrown, et al) are continuing their trek through alternate universes.

In the fullness of time, courts will be making their decisions about some of these issues. They will be doing so without consulting the opinions of Don29palms, N6ATF, kcbrown, et al. And I'm sure that at least some of those decisions of the courts will not be to the liking of, nor comport with the visions of, Don29palms, N6ATF, kcbrown, et al.

It will be interesting to see how things unfold.

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 7:04 PM
LOL
Some of us would prefer the courts always do the absolutely unassailable, correct thing for all law-abiders, but just because they almost never do, doesn't mean we should just give up, bend over, and spread our bumcheeks.

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 7:06 PM
Then don't shudder about charges and liability that would not be held against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Yup...except that doesn't shield me from anything except the fact someone uses a gun they got from me in a crime. If I miss something that I should have caught...well, you would certainly pay for my legal defense...right?

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract,criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 7:17 PM
You are not directly responsible for someone else's criminal actions. Talk about word play... jeez. /unsubscribe

kcbrown
04-02-2011, 7:32 PM
Having come back to this thread after being out and about, I see that the usual suspects (Don29palms, N6ATF, kcbrown, et al) are continuing their trek through alternate universes.


You are assuming that what we believe should be is what we believe is or will be. I assure you, I am under no such delusion, and I would be grateful if you stop asserting that I am.

fiddletown
04-02-2011, 7:35 PM
...Some of us would prefer the courts always do the absolutely unassailable, ...Of course courts aren't unassailable. A ruling of one court may be appealed. A ruling in one court may be challenged or overruled by another appropriate in a different case. And the law upon which a court's ruling may have been based can be changed.

If you don't like things, avail yourself of the opportunities to try to change things. Of course, it's more fun to grouse on the Internet.

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 7:42 PM
You are not directly responsible for someone else's criminal actions. Talk about word play... jeez. /unsubscribe

Hmmm...don't see where I said that...but lets take a look at the actual law shall we?

From 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903:

(5) Qualified civil liability action
(A) In general
The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include—
(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924 (h) of title 18, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

I know it's inconvenient to your argument...but there it is in black and white.

wildhawker
04-02-2011, 7:46 PM
Don, your comments are making you sound weak and homophobic. Substantive please.

hoffmang
04-02-2011, 8:58 PM
They grudgingly agreed to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights anyway in order to gain the necessary support of the anti-Federalists (Thomas Jefferson being among the most influential of the anti-Federalists).

Wow! No.

The Anti Federalists lost man. The Federalists threw them a cheap sop called the Bill of Rights. Go look at how many states had ratified the Constitution without the Bill of Rights and do the math...

Please, please, please be informed before you write as if you're informed. And no, it's not my responsibility to spend an hour doing the internet history research required to prove to you that the anti-federalists didn't prevail.

You do recall it was called the Federalist Papers and not the Anti-Federalist Papers, right?

-Gene

kcbrown
04-02-2011, 9:44 PM
Wow! No.

The Anti Federalists lost man. The Federalists threw them a cheap sop called the Bill of Rights. Go look at how many states had ratified the Constitution without the Bill of Rights and do the math...


No kidding, the anti-Federalists lost. The Constitution would look rather different than it does now if they had won.

But that does not negate the fact that were it not for the anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights wouldn't even be in the Constitution at all. Quite obviously, they had enough influence to get that put into it. Do you think the Federalists allowed it to be put in there out of the goodness of their hearts?



Please, please, please be informed before you write as if you're informed. And no, it's not my responsibility to spend an hour doing the internet history research required to prove to you that the anti-federalists didn't prevail.
What in the world makes you think that I believe the anti-Federalists prevailed overall? They prevailed only in getting the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. Do you dispute that?


Please, please don't read more into what I write than what I actually write.

hoffmang
04-02-2011, 10:43 PM
Do you think the Federalists allowed it to be put in there out of the goodness of their hearts?

The Federalists put it in because the items in the Bill of Rights were not even close to being in serious disagreement. As I said, cheap sop. However, that doesn't mean that "shall not be infringed" means what people here wish it means or even meant then - just like "no person" didn't mean literally no person.

-Gene

kcbrown
04-03-2011, 1:11 AM
The Federalists put it in because the items in the Bill of Rights were not even close to being in serious disagreement.


Clearly if there had been enough disagreement about it, it probably wouldn't have made it into the Constitution in the form it did. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights would not have been included at all were it not for the anti-Federalists' insistence that it be included, and I believe you overstate the level of agreement on the Bill of Rights here on the part of the Federalists. The Federalists' own actions afterwards are clear evidence of that.



As I said, cheap sop.
Considering what the Federalists passed not too long afterwards, I suspect that it wasn't quite as cheap as you imply here, because the Alien and Sedition Acts quite clearly illustrate that any appearance of agreement on the part of the Federalists was just that: appearance.

This is supported by the fact that we're talking about the most important document these people would ever touch, and the people involved must surely have known this. This cannot be overstated. One does not compromise on such a document unless one absolutely must, even if the compromise is "minor" -- the long term consequences are simply too great, even with the amendment mechanism in place.



However, that doesn't mean that "shall not be infringed" means what people here wish it means or even meant then - just like "no person" didn't mean literally no person.
This is true, but one cannot legitimately refer to the writings of many of the Federalists (with the notable exception of James Madison, of course, seeing how he authored the Bill of Rights) when asking what was meant as regards the Bill of Rights, since they are not who wrote the Bill of Rights and, furthermore, disputed that it should be put into the Constitution to begin with.

While the meaning of "shall not be infringed" (or "Congress shall pass no law ... abridging ...") does not necessarily mean what some here think, your use of the Alien and Sedition Acts to illustrate that is poor at best, especially in light of the fact that the author of the Bill of Rights himself was vehemently opposed to them.

hoffmang
04-03-2011, 1:18 AM
Considering what the Federalists passed not too long afterwards, I suspect that it wasn't quite as cheap as you imply here, because the Alien and Sedition Acts quite clearly illustrate that any appearance of agreement on the part of the Federalists was just that: appearance.

You're making my point for me. The Federalist could write "make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" and then make the law abridging the freedom of speech and those Anti-Federalists could do what to stop it?

-Gene

kcbrown
04-03-2011, 1:30 AM
You're making my point for me. The Federalist could write "make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" and then make the law abridging the freedom of speech and those Anti-Federalists could do what to stop it?


At the time? Nothing.

Later, when people started to take what was written in the Constitution a bit more seriously? Quite a lot. Especially after the Federalists lost power in large part directly because of things like the Alien and Sedition Acts.

As I said, the long term consequences of compromising on such a foundational document are huge, and so I have little reason to believe that the Federalists did so willingly. And, indeed, one could probably argue that the existence of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution gave great weight to the opponents of the Federalists and made it possible to eject them from power much sooner than they might have been ejected otherwise.


Look, you'll get no argument from me that what's written in documents like the Constitution means nothing without people willing to back up what is written with actions. That has always been the case everywhere.

But my point stands: the Alien and Sedition Acts are not a good example of what the words in the Bill of Rights mean. If anything, they are an excellent example of how words in the Constitution can be utterly ignored by those who swore to uphold it. And that is most certainly something no sane person would dispute.

CDFingers
04-03-2011, 8:47 AM
fiddletown wrote:

>We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."

That whole post was pretty good.

We live in a republic, so sometimes everyone doesn't get the exactly perfect government he or she would like. All voters get representation, so things change over time. I think on the whole, gun laws are changing in gun owners' favors all across the nation.

The discussion of "to infringe" is really interesting. I think that is where the rubber will meet the road.

CDFingers

JRob
04-03-2011, 10:26 AM
As I said...word play gets tiring. Under this premise Charlie Manson, if paroled, should be able to go buy guns, because it doesn't mention felons in the 2nd. Or better yet, why not argue prison populations should have RKBA...after all, it's a right that can't be infringed...right? The Constitution doesn't even mention felonies except for treason and felonies committed on the high seas. So there's hope for good ole Charlie. :rolleyes:

Generally, until the early 1900s, anyone could buy and carry guns - there weren't Wild West social consequences stemming from that (or maybe you actually accept the Brady "Wild West shootouts" propaganda).

IIRC, when a felon was released from a state Penitentiary, they were given $25 and a pistol.

This is not an "alternative universe" - it is what used to BE America when it was a non-socialist country that paid heed to the Constitution

Freedom really, actually used to function in this country. It can again, when the socialists, Bradyites and Chicken Littles are overcome

jtmkinsd
04-03-2011, 10:56 AM
Generally, until the early 1900s, anyone could buy and carry guns - there weren't Wild West social consequences stemming from that (or maybe you actually accept the Brady "Wild West shootouts" propaganda).

IIRC, when a felon was released from a state Penitentiary, they were given $25 and a pistol.

This is not an "alternative universe" - it is what used to BE America when it was a non-socialist country that paid heed to the Constitution

Freedom really, actually used to function in this country. It can again, when the socialists, Bradyites and Chicken Littles are overcome

I'd laugh...but you're serious, so all I can do is shake my head.

kcbrown
04-03-2011, 2:41 PM
I'd laugh...but you're serious, so all I can do is shake my head.

The only question is whether or not his history is correct.

If it is, then it's silly for you to shake your head, except perhaps wistfully.

If it's not, then he needs to be corrected.

fiddletown
04-03-2011, 6:55 PM
...IIRC, when a felon was released from a state Penitentiary, they were given $25 and a pistol....How about some evidence?

jtmkinsd
04-03-2011, 6:58 PM
How about some evidence?

Does a spaghetti western count? :D

fiddletown
04-03-2011, 7:04 PM
Does a spaghetti western count? :DThat may be the answer, but I'm trying to cut down on carbohydrates.