Guns, Guns Guns

Daryl wrote:Lots of interesting legal argument here from people who obviously know much more about the judicial history than I do.
This still skirts my point that the US is unusual in that the discussion is based on what the original writers meant to say, as this is regarded as crucially important.
In a similar discussion here we would say that those people wanted whatever and it suited at the time, but no longer. We wouldn't thrash around debating what they meant, but just rewrite to suit us knowing that a further generation may well rewrite it again. Not done casually and would have to pass a referendum but the original meaning wouldn't be a significant part of the discussion.
Whatever suits each culture, but different basic premise.

Indeed, and the Founders themselves would be shaking their heads at the entire debate. They wrote the document *to be constantly updated*. That's why it has an amendment process. Jefferson thought the entire thing should be completely rewritten from scratch every generation for cripes sake, if he knew people were debating the Founders "original intent" over 200 years later he'd be spinning in his grave.

Changing the Constitution via the prescribed mechanism is fine. Changing the First Amendment to limit its protection to only defend certain speech without going through the amendment process is not fine. Changing what words in the Amendment means is doing just that.

gcomeau wrote:

Daryl wrote:Lots of interesting legal argument here from people who obviously know much more about the judicial history than I do.
This still skirts my point that the US is unusual in that the discussion is based on what the original writers meant to say, as this is regarded as crucially important.
In a similar discussion here we would say that those people wanted whatever and it suited at the time, but no longer. We wouldn't thrash around debating what they meant, but just rewrite to suit us knowing that a further generation may well rewrite it again. Not done casually and would have to pass a referendum but the original meaning wouldn't be a significant part of the discussion.
Whatever suits each culture, but different basic premise.

Indeed, and the Founders themselves would be shaking their heads at the entire debate. They wrote the document *to be constantly updated*. That's why it has an amendment process. Jefferson thought the entire thing should be completely rewritten from scratch every generation for cripes sake, if he knew people were debating the Founders "original intent" over 200 years later he'd be spinning in his grave.

PeterZ wrote:Changing the Constitution via the prescribed mechanism is fine. Changing the First Amendment to limit its protection to only defend certain speech without going through the amendment process is not fine. Changing what words in the Amendment means is doing just that.

gcomeau wrote:"Daryl"]Lots of interesting legal argument here from people who obviously know much more about the judicial history than I do.
This still skirts my point that the US is unusual in that the discussion is based on what the original writers meant to say, as this is regarded as crucially important.
In a similar discussion here we would say that those people wanted whatever and it suited at the time, but no longer. We wouldn't thrash around debating what they meant, but just rewrite to suit us knowing that a further generation may well rewrite it again. Not done casually and would have to pass a referendum but the original meaning wouldn't be a significant part of the discussion.
Whatever suits each culture, but different basic premise."

Indeed, and the Founders themselves would be shaking their heads at the entire debate. They wrote the document *to be constantly updated*. That's why it has an amendment process. Jefferson thought the entire thing should be completely rewritten from scratch every generation for cripes sake, if he knew people were debating the Founders "original intent" over 200 years later he'd be spinning in his grave.

A proper process requires some thinking time. And this means thinking about more than just what is accepted at the time. "Those who do not know history .. .."

HB of CJ wrote:...It means what it says using common written English understood at the time. Over 228 years ago. What is dangerous today is that some politicians make up their own interpretations. They are deathly AFRAID of the armed population...

HB of CJ wrote:...They are deathly AFRAID of the armed population...

HB of CJ wrote:...They are deathly AFRAID of the armed population...

As any would-be tyrants are! Hence the "liberal", Socialist (ahem communist) so-called "Democrats" being soooo anti-gun. "no-one should have guns except the polic and military...which we control (maniacal cackle)"

gcomeau wrote:They wrote the document *to be constantly updated*. That's why it has an amendment process.

Wrong, They wrote the Constitution to replace the Articles-of-Confederation which weren't working. They wrote it in haste in-order to get something out-there, to be agreed upon before someone decieded to stop them and go back to the Articles or just go their own way. They also knew that, in their haste, they would not be able to cover everything, so they jotted in the section on amendments so that THEY could come back later and add what was left-out, with less effort needed than getting the whole document approved, and they did, it's called the Bill-of-Rights

PeterZ wrote:...until the Amendments are repealed by a legally accepted mechanism...

Except that there is no "document" called the "2nd Amendment". This is a false-hood that has been propagated. The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd clause of the document known as the "Bill-of-Rights" which includes such things as "Free Press", "Free Speech", "Habeas Corpus", "Jury-of-Your-Pears" and a whole lot of other freedoms we take for granted BECAUSE of THAT document. ANY change allowed to THAT document opens up the precedence to change ANY other part of it and it ceases to be the rock solid LAW-of-the-LAND and we cease to be able to count on them NOT being changeable! All the other "inalienable rights" Americans count on stop being "inalienable" and are subject to repeal. Thus ends American Freedom! That's what the so-called "Democrats" (Communists) want!

PeterZ wrote:Changing the Constitution via the prescribed mechanism is fine. Changing the First Amendment to limit its protection to only defend certain speech without going through the amendment process is not fine. Changing what words in the Amendment means is doing just that.

This is why the Founders also established a judicial system, to decide between disputed interpretations of the Constitution. They aren't "changing" the Amendment, they're just deciding how it applied to a specific situation. For example, the Founders probably never specifically considered whether burning the American flag in protest should be protected as free speech, so the Supreme Court had to decide how the 1st Amendment applied in that case.

The Founders were smart folks, they realized that the world would not be frozen in the year 1789, so they provided mechanisms for adaptation. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, establishes both principles and practices. The practices may change as our world and society change, but the principles remain.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, we have to look at changes in society (such as the present existence of a standing military force, which replaced the function of the militia cited in the Amendment, and changes in weapons technology. The Amendment in full reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first half establishes the principle, that a free State must be able to defend itself. Since the Founders did not want a large standing army (the US Army consisted of 80 people in the 1780s), they relied on common citizens to keep arms and be "well-regulated" in both the sense of marksmanship and organizational discipline, so that in times of need, the country could quickly raise an armed force. If one applies a literal interpretation of these practices to modern times, then we would have no standing military, and every person of service age would be required to join the National Guard.

Practices have changed. We now have a professional military force, under the Department of Defense. They need to be trained pros to handle the modern weapons technology. With the responsibility for national defense transferred from militias to the DoD, we could argue that there is no further need for private citizens to own firearms.

However, writings of the Founders indicate that they also wanted to preserve the common-law right of self-defense, a right that is meaningless without the tools to exercise it. This leads to the conclusion that the citizen has the right to own weapons of self-defense (as well as for activities like hunting, which was a survival skill in the 1800s but has been redefined as recreation by the supermarkets on every corner), and that, in my opinion, is where we are having trouble today. Where is the line between a weapon of self-defense or sport and a weapon of war? I would not dispute your right to own a handgun or shotgun for defense of self and home, but a military-grade rifle with a 30 round magazine seems like overkill, and if you need 30 rounds to take a deer, you need a new hobby.

The US tried to regulate specific features of firearms with the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, a bill full of flaws written by people who knew very little about firearms and less about practicality. It went away under a sunset provision. I believe that the idea should be revived, but done properly. The high-capacity magazine ban in the original bill was flawed because it exempted magazines manufactured before the effective date, and there were tons of them out there. I would accept a 10 round capacity limit, provided there was a mandatory turn-in of hi-cap mags with reimbursement.

The bill also spent a lot of nit-picking on specific weapon features, resulting in weapons being redesigned specifically to get around the bill. The idea needs to be simpler. It also needs to include mandatory training on firearm handling and safety, legal issues, and situational tactics. There should also be a system for quick and thorough background checks, with an appeals process, which would be mandatory for all firearm sales, commercial or private.

This leads to an issue that really bugs me, which is the state-to-state differences in gun laws. Because the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it should be applied equally in all US states and territories. Why should my federally mandated rights change when I cross a state line? Here in Florida, I could have simply presented my Honorable Discharge from the US Army and received my concealed weapons permit, with a cursory background check and NO training on the legalities of concealed carry in Florida (which are different from other states). My wife and I chose to take the Sheriff's Department course for the legal content.

Let's have some consistency state to state. I want to know that everyone in the country who has a gun has been vetted and trained, and that I can go armed anywhere in the US.

I never said that it was a good idea TO change them. Asserting that they cannot be changed is simply false. they are the first 10 amendments of our constitution. Consider that sentence.....they are the first 10 changes made to our Constitution.

I happen to agree that those 10 amendments are the sine qua non of a government that guarantees liberty. I do not agree that they are NOT subject to change. Our Constitution is a social contract between the citizens of this country who hold the ultimate sovereignty. Should those citizens decide to sacrifice these guaranteed liberties for whatever safety or prosperity some jackanapes offers them, it is their right to do so. It is my right to resist with whatever level of force I deem fit to protect my sovereignty.

The bottom line is that as a contract, the Constitution is only effective if the vast majority of people voluntarily accept the rights and responsibilities contained in it. Should that vast majority decide it wishes other rights and responsibilities, the Constitution is dead. Any defense of it is useless.

If on the other hand it is a loud minority that seeks to steal my sovereignty, defense may be worthwhile.

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:...until the Amendments are repealed by a legally accepted mechanism...

Except that there is no "document" called the "2nd Amendment". This is a false-hood that has been propagated. The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd clause of the document known as the "Bill-of-Rights" which includes such things as "Free Press", "Free Speech", "Habeas Corpus", "Jury-of-Your-Pears" and a whole lot of other freedoms we take for granted BECAUSE of THAT document. ANY change allowed to THAT document opens up the precedence to change ANY other part of it and it ceases to be the rock solid LAW-of-the-LAND and we cease to be able to count on them NOT being changeable! All the other "inalienable rights" Americans count on stop being "inalienable" and are subject to repeal. Thus ends American Freedom! That's what the so-called "Democrats" (Communists) want!

I don't disagree at all. I would however, elaborate on one issue; self defense includes the defense of our sovereignty and liberty. Ultimately, the responsibility of what our agents in government do rests with us, the citizenry. By extension if the government exceeds its authority to some extreme degree, we have the responsibility to reign it back.

Under those considerations, private ownership of weapons of war is necessary to resist against the standing army that our founder feared. That ownership doesn't guarantee a successful defense, only that we have the tools to exercise the defense of our sovereignty and liberty.

Furthermore, having more robust weapons may well come in handy should social order become totally unraveled. Trying to get weapons during a time of complete chaos will be impossible. Ownership prior to whatever ushers in complete social unraveling is the only way a prudent individual prepares for that eventuality. Are the odds of that high? No, they are not. Yet, looking at the failed states in inexistence today, the odds are not zero.

The distinction between owning the most capable weapons possible and strict legislation of their use is an important one. The right to own weapons to protect oneself when social order disappears is essential. The wild frontiers of the early USA was after all an area of limited social order and protection where the most powerful weapons to be had would be very much appreciated. Yet using those weapons beyond practice when social order exists to provide for that larger degree of protection is unnecessary.

So, while social order exists, the use of weapons of war should be carefully legislated, but their ownership should not be restricted. That's why the 2A was written as it was in addition to the reasons you provided.

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Changing the Constitution via the prescribed mechanism is fine. Changing the First Amendment to limit its protection to only defend certain speech without going through the amendment process is not fine. Changing what words in the Amendment means is doing just that.

This is why the Founders also established a judicial system, to decide between disputed interpretations of the Constitution. They aren't "changing" the Amendment, they're just deciding how it applied to a specific situation. For example, the Founders probably never specifically considered whether burning the American flag in protest should be protected as free speech, so the Supreme Court had to decide how the 1st Amendment applied in that case.

The Founders were smart folks, they realized that the world would not be frozen in the year 1789, so they provided mechanisms for adaptation. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, establishes both principles and practices. The practices may change as our world and society change, but the principles remain.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, we have to look at changes in society (such as the present existence of a standing military force, which replaced the function of the militia cited in the Amendment, and changes in weapons technology. The Amendment in full reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first half establishes the principle, that a free State must be able to defend itself. Since the Founders did not want a large standing army (the US Army consisted of 80 people in the 1780s), they relied on common citizens to keep arms and be "well-regulated" in both the sense of marksmanship and organizational discipline, so that in times of need, the country could quickly raise an armed force. If one applies a literal interpretation of these practices to modern times, then we would have no standing military, and every person of service age would be required to join the National Guard.

Practices have changed. We now have a professional military force, under the Department of Defense. They need to be trained pros to handle the modern weapons technology. With the responsibility for national defense transferred from militias to the DoD, we could argue that there is no further need for private citizens to own firearms.

However, writings of the Founders indicate that they also wanted to preserve the common-law right of self-defense, a right that is meaningless without the tools to exercise it. This leads to the conclusion that the citizen has the right to own weapons of self-defense (as well as for activities like hunting, which was a survival skill in the 1800s but has been redefined as recreation by the supermarkets on every corner), and that, in my opinion, is where we are having trouble today. Where is the line between a weapon of self-defense or sport and a weapon of war? I would not dispute your right to own a handgun or shotgun for defense of self and home, but a military-grade rifle with a 30 round magazine seems like overkill, and if you need 30 rounds to take a deer, you need a new hobby.

The US tried to regulate specific features of firearms with the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, a bill full of flaws written by people who knew very little about firearms and less about practicality. It went away under a sunset provision. I believe that the idea should be revived, but done properly. The high-capacity magazine ban in the original bill was flawed because it exempted magazines manufactured before the effective date, and there were tons of them out there. I would accept a 10 round capacity limit, provided there was a mandatory turn-in of hi-cap mags with reimbursement.

The bill also spent a lot of nit-picking on specific weapon features, resulting in weapons being redesigned specifically to get around the bill. The idea needs to be simpler. It also needs to include mandatory training on firearm handling and safety, legal issues, and situational tactics. There should also be a system for quick and thorough background checks, with an appeals process, which would be mandatory for all firearm sales, commercial or private.

This leads to an issue that really bugs me, which is the state-to-state differences in gun laws. Because the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it should be applied equally in all US states and territories. Why should my federally mandated rights change when I cross a state line? Here in Florida, I could have simply presented my Honorable Discharge from the US Army and received my concealed weapons permit, with a cursory background check and NO training on the legalities of concealed carry in Florida (which are different from other states). My wife and I chose to take the Sheriff's Department course for the legal content.

Let's have some consistency state to state. I want to know that everyone in the country who has a gun has been vetted and trained, and that I can go armed anywhere in the US.

PeterZ wrote:...Asserting that they cannot be changed is simply false.
I happen to agree that those 10 amendments are the sine qua non of a government that guarantees liberty. I do not agree that they are NOT subject to change... Should those citizens decide to sacrifice these guaranteed liberties...it is their right to do so. It is my right to resist with whatever level of force I deem fit to protect my sovereignty.

The bottom line is that as a contract, the Constitution is only effective if the vast majority of people voluntarily accept the rights and responsibilities contained in it. Should that vast majority decide it wishes other rights and responsibilities, the Constitution is dead. Any defense of it is useless...

Then, like all other countries, we have no "Rights", only whatever "Privileges" the Federal Government decides to allow us, at this time. If the people (as a majority) decide to stop being "Americans" and simply through out the Constitution and join China, they can. They are then NOT Americans anymore. The Bill-of-Rights is just that "Rights" and must remain sacrosanct to the American people or they have no right to call themselves Americans!

Yes, and.....?

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:...Asserting that they cannot be changed is simply false.
I happen to agree that those 10 amendments are the sine qua non of a government that guarantees liberty. I do not agree that they are NOT subject to change... Should those citizens decide to sacrifice these guaranteed liberties...it is their right to do so. It is my right to resist with whatever level of force I deem fit to protect my sovereignty.

The bottom line is that as a contract, the Constitution is only effective if the vast majority of people voluntarily accept the rights and responsibilities contained in it. Should that vast majority decide it wishes other rights and responsibilities, the Constitution is dead. Any defense of it is useless...

Then, like all other countries, we have no "Rights", only whatever "Privileges" the Federal Government decides to allow us, at this time. If the people (as a majority) decide to stop being "Americans" and simply through out the Constitution and join China, they can. They are then NOT Americans anymore. The Bill-of-Rights is just that "Rights" and must remain sacrosanct to the American people or they have no right to call themselves Americans!

PeterZ wrote:Yes, and.....?

MAD-4A wrote:Then, like all other countries, we have no "Rights", only whatever "Privileges" the Federal Government decides to allow us, at this time. If the people (as a majority) decide to stop being "Americans" and simply through out the Constitution and join China, they can. They are then NOT Americans anymore. The Bill-of-Rights is just that "Rights" and must remain sacrosanct to the American people or they have no right to call themselves Americans!

We appear to be dealing with the same phenomenon that comes up in discussions of religion and morality, where some people appear to be under the impression that unless whatever standards they hold to are immutable fundamental laws of the universe rather than being dependent on the consensus of society to uphold them... they are worthless.


As I'm reading MAD's tirade, he is outraged at the idea that anyone could think that the content of the Constitution (or at least the parts he really really likes) is anything other than carved in stone and inviolate. Despite the fact that the document itself says in plain English "Amendment I... Amendment II..." which rather refutes the idea that it is some kind of immutable and unquestionable prerequisite of being an "American!"