Liberal Senator Kerry (Dem) pushes for more gun control

Jarod said:
Do you belive I have a right to go into crowede theaters and yell "fire"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because to me personally the cost of in any way restricting a right as important as free speech far exceeds the cost of a few idiots yelling fire.
 
Epicurus said:
I agree that it is not a popular interpretation, and I will concede that they were probably not considering machine guns and WMDs when they drafted the document. But they were aware of the rapidly increasing rate of technological progress, and Dano is correct that the original intent of the Amendment was to prevent the state from becoming disproportionately more powerful than its citizens.

I know that most Americans would prefer a more moderate interpretation, and I can't pretend to know whether the Founding Fathers would word the Amendment the same way seeing our technological progress. But we have the Amendment that we were given, unless it is changed and ratified. I do believe that the way the 2nd is currently worded, any infringment whatsoever could potentially be struck down as unconstitutional. It's a fringe position in American society, which is ironic to me considering it merely follows the letter and intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The intent of the founders is less than clear and those on each side of the issue can point to plenty of historical context to support their positions. Take a look at the dissent in the latest SCOUTS case for example.

This is why I hate original intent arguments as a general matter. People on either side can almost always dig up a modicum of historical evidence to support their positions that is largely results oriented rather than an effort to get to the truth to the extent that there is only one.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Sure it does, do you even know why it came about? The 2nd amendment was advocated so that ordinary citizens would have always have a means of resisting a tyranical government should it get out of control.
Obviously militias and individuals would need to fight government on the same terms.
Gun control to Liberals seems to be interpreted to mean that people can have guns so long as government can have more powerful guns - which of course negates the primary point of the amendment.
Click to expand...

Then, like good luck said, people should be able to own thermonuclear weapons.

Your logic is just silly. If the constitution actually means that it should be amended as soon as possible.
 
Epicurus said:
Yes. Because to me personally the cost of in any way restricting a right as important as free speech far exceeds the cost of a few idiots yelling fire.
Click to expand...

You are delusional if you think that the second amendment even comes within a trillion light years as being as important as the first amendment.
 
Dungheap said:
The intent of the founders is less than clear and those on each side of the issue can point to plenty of historical context to support their positions. Take a look at the dissent in the latest SCOUTS case for example.

This is why I hate original intent arguments as a general matter. People on either side can almost always dig up a modicum of historical evidence to support their positions that is largely results oriented rather than an effort to get to the truth to the extent that there is only one.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree it is a very messy way to go about things, but I think it is important to try to determine. People sometimes talk as though the Founders were drafting the document thousands of years ago and that we can only hazard vague guesses as to their intentions.

While they are certainly less clear in some areas than we would like, it is not as though their intentions are wholly obscured. Transcripts of debates and discussions over the drafting have been published. The Federalist Papers are a lengthy and fairly comprehensive explanation of the original intent of most of the Constitution. Also, the First Congress and several subsequent were composed of many original Founding Fathers involved in the drafting of the document.

I understand that people can grasp onto convenient facts when arguing about original intent so the arguments are rarely clear-cut. But it is an important component of judicial decisions. Debate about the 2nd Amendment is particularly irksome to me because I believe that there is hardly a MORE clear and less debatable amendment in the whole of the Constitution.

It is a poor sign for the unity of our society and our strict adherence to the Constitution when we cannot collectively agree on the meaning of "... the Right to Bear Arms shall not be Infringed".
 
Watermarx said:
You are delusional if you think that the second amendment even comes within a trillion light years as being as important as the first amendment.
Click to expand...

I could argue either side. But it is the 2nd Amendment that gives all the others any weight whatsoever. If there were a disarmed citizenry, our elected officials would have little reason or incentive to respect the other amendments.

It is in many ways the most important by far.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
Do you belive I have a right to go into crowede theaters and yell "fire"?
Click to expand...

Nor do you have the right to go into a crowded theater AND fire. There are limits any owner of private property can put on what speech or guns are allowed on their premises.
The rights we have apply in a public sense.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The 2nd Amendment meant absolutely the right to own an AK or M16, or even a barret .50 caliber.

They KNEW firsthand the terrible oppression that a standing military force could enact upon an unarmed populace and wanted to ensure that the civilian populace had equal firepower to any standing military.
Click to expand...

And giving lunatics like you access to the same firepower DEFINITELY leads to terrible oppression! It's like a choice between having a 50-50 chance of having my foot cut off and having 100% chance of having my foot cut off - which would any rational person choose?
 
Watermarx said:
You are delusional if you think that the second amendment even comes within a trillion light years as being as important as the first amendment.
Click to expand...

And if government DID violate the first amendment terribly, how do you propose to fix it if not by the 2nd amendment?

There is a reason Goebbels cheered on Himmler.
 
Dungheap said:
The intent of the founders is less than clear and those on each side of the issue can point to plenty of historical context to support their positions. Take a look at the dissent in the latest SCOUTS case for example.
Click to expand...
what is usually never taken in to account is the numerous publishings in the news media of the time, a thorough explanation of the constitution and bill of rights explained to each and every citizen in laymans terms so that they could readily understand just what it was that they were voting to ratify. Every single article and quote during those debates and votes that defined the 2nd Amendment as one that 'shall not be infringed' by congress or anyone else was NEVER denied or challenged by any other member of the public or framers of the constitution. Not a single one of them.

If there were ANY opposition to the unregulated ownership of arms, it was never recorded.
 
KingCondanomation said:
And if government DID violate the first amendment terribly, how do you propose to fix it if not by the 2nd amendment
Click to expand...

Nothing lasts for ever. Requesting mass slaughter as a solution to such a problem is ridiculous. A fascist party could just as easily rise up anyway, and that's far more likely to happen.
 
Epicurus said:
Yes I agree it is a very messy way to go about things, but I think it is important to try to determine. People sometimes talk as though the Founders were drafting the document thousands of years ago and that we can only hazard vague guesses as to their intentions.

While they are certainly less clear in some areas than we would like, it is not as though their intentions are wholly obscured. Transcripts of debates and discussions over the drafting have been published. The Federalist Papers are a lengthy and fairly comprehensive explanation of the original intent of most of the Constitution. Also, the First Congress and several subsequent were composed of many original Founding Fathers involved in the drafting of the document.

I understand that people can grasp onto convenient facts when arguing about original intent so the arguments are rarely clear-cut. But it is an important component of judicial decisions. Debate about the 2nd Amendment is particularly irksome to me because I believe that there is hardly a MORE clear and less debatable amendment in the whole of the Constitution.

It is a poor sign for the unity of our society and our strict adherence to the Constitution when we cannot collectively agree on the meaning of "... the Right to Bear Arms shall not be Infringed".
Click to expand...


But excepting the bold and claiming that it is unequivocally clear is dishonest. You are leaving out the portion that makes it ambiguous.
 
Epicurus said:
I could argue either side. But it is the 2nd Amendment that gives all the others any weight whatsoever. If there were a disarmed citizenry, our elected officials would have little reason or incentive to respect the other amendments.

It is in many ways the most important by far.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that our elected officials don't run amok because they're afraid of our guns? Really?
 
Watermarx said:
What if someone rises up and quashes my free speech? You anarchist are proposing a non-solution.
Click to expand...
I guess Pres. Lincoln was an anarchist at heart?

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top