Date: Sat Jul 12 16:04:58 2008
Sender: Gregor Ellis
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about the recent 2nd amendment case decision
by the Supreme Court. Reading it, it seems pretty clear that government(s) can
regulate our bearing of arms extensively - just not ban it outright. It would
appear assault weapons bans, registration laws, "wait to buy" laws, etc. are
all allowed. What am I missing?
Date: Sat Jul 12 19:00:25 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" 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. "
Well, I guess it's all in how you read it. I think it says "the people" have
the right to bear arms. Not that "the people" are the Militia. Otherwise it
would say "we the people of the militia" have the right to bear arms. IMHO
Date: Sat Jul 12 20:03:10 2008
Sender: Kendell R Jillson
I think one argument is that 'well-regulated' means well drilled and maintained
and not having anything to do with the government being able to tell people
what they can or can't use as a firearm. The justification being you didn't
want a militia made up of people who never fired a gun before. Since the
corrollary argument is that the militia has nothing to do with state or
nationally controlled armed forces (e.g. it's not the National Guard) but is
the "whole of the people" (paraphrasing George Mason, one of the writers of the
Bill of Rights...he even goes further to say that the militia is everyone,
except certain public officials, employing the line of thinking that the
militia is necessary for defense from harmful governments and armies, both
foreign and domestic.
Date: Sat Jul 12 20:35:41 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
It is a little outdated and the constitution was designed as a living document.
I don't want my neighbor to have a Rocket Launcher, or an M16...
Date: Sun Jul 13 06:42:08 2008
Sender: William Johnson
Just like the freedom of speech, there are restrictions in the freedom to bear
arms. You can't yell fire in a crowded room and you shouldn't be able to own
military weaponry. Let the military own those. But, there is nothing that says
I can't own a pistol or rifle if I want to, as long as I don't break any laws
to get them and use them.
Date: Mon Jul 14 14:31:00 2008
Sender: Red Burley
A couple points to make:
1) In the 1780s, all adult males WERE de facto members of the militia, subject
to service whenever called on.
2) In that era, anyone who owned a flintlock musket owned the equivalent of the
most modern military firearm available. This would be similar to everyone
having an AR-15 over their mantle today.
Date: Mon Jul 14 15:52:14 2008
Sender: Just Oz
1) AJ re: living document -- says you. I disagree to a point. It is living IF
IT IS AMMENDED. It is not living from the point of view of people finding
rights in it that don't exist, etc.
2) Re: the ruling itself, it really has to do with if you think this is one
thought or two.
What I found interesting is that ALL nine of the justices found it to be an
individual right. The liberals just said that the right wasn't being abridged
by the law in question.
Date: Tue Jul 15 01:59:07 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh
The Constitution is hopelessly outdated, and the Second Amendment is one of the
places where that is most obvious.
We really should just rewrite the entire thing every generation or so, but for
sentimentality's sake we just ignore/reinterpret most of the outdated parts to
fit our changing needs.
Date: Tue Jul 15 17:19:20 2008
Sender: Gregor Ellis
William - I agree that "militia" means what it was intended to mean by the
founders: that part of the population that would be called upon to defend the
country in time of war. It certainly didn't/shouldn't mean an organized and
established group.
AJ/Oz - I have to agree with Oz that the amendment process is and should remain
the mechanism by which the Constitution is made a living document. That was
explicitly why that capability was written in to the document in the first
place. To me, the idea that judges get to discover rights not stated is counter
to the whole concept (just as one of the biggest problems with the Iraq War is
that it is not countenanced by an official Declaration of War but rather by
'discovered' executive powers).
Kyle -
Why is it hopelessly outdated? Are the basic rights described outdated? Is the
basic thrust of the document (to define the scope and limits of central
government power) outdated?
What is wrong with the amendment process? If we rewrote it every decade or two,
and decided by majority vote, are you willing to accept the result when the
political side you disagree with is stronger than that you agree with (think of
a Constitutional endorsement of a particular religion or, conversely, a
prohibition of certain religious activities)? If we had rewritten the thing
under majority rules in the mid-70's we would have had democratic socialism
enshrined. If done in the mid-80's, we very well could have seen a codification
of Christianity as an official religion. If it is not by majority vote, then
the amendment process offers the same path to changes IMO.
Date: Tue Jul 15 17:24:55 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh
The basic rights aren't outdated (though we could stand to see a few more
added), but a majority of the document isn't about that. It's about
technicalities and procedures, and those parts are hideously outdated.
The amendment process, specifically, worked much better with 13 states than it
does with 50. Far too difficult to get an amendment together these days as
compared with originally.
Date: Wed Jul 16 13:49:06 2008
Sender: Gregor Ellis
I wholeheartedly agree that the procedural items are outdated and need to be
brought up to acknowledge modern transportation and communications at the
least. But I'm not willing to forgo the amendment process at the risk of
terminal deadlock or a power grab by the ascendant political wing of the
moment.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
