Gun control/2nd Amendment

[David Floyd]

Boris,

DF: See my post wherein I point out the FFs are all dead as dodos, so their desires mean diddly/squat to modern society.

Then, if that's the case, why not just tear up the entire Constitution?

Sava,

Yeah, huge problem with that position... unless you believe the founding fathers had a crystal ball and saw the future developments in firearms and weapons.

Obviously they didn't - the 2nd can be changed through an amendment.

But I'm not going to discuss this topic with you any more David. You think it's okay for people to own nuclear weapons, missiles, and machine guns. And I've known you long enough to know better than to waste my time.

Erm, I thought you opened this thread for the initial purpose of carrying on a discussion with me?

In any case, nuclear weapons and missiles are not relevant to the 2nd Amendment, as they fall under the category of ordnance, and not arms. Heavy machine guns probably do as well. So why even bring those up?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then, if that's the case, why not just tear up the entire Constitution?

Because it serves a purpose to modern society, and we still want it around. We just make it flexible to accomodate a modern point of view. It would be silly and time-wasting to ammend the constitution for everything the society wishes to see but may not be strictly constitutional. Ergo interpretation, while still maintaining the core frame, is the most sensible path.

A document that is inflexible will cease to represent the will of the people and then will become irrelevant. I'd rather the Constitution flow more freely into the modern era.

[Sava]

nuclear weapons are considered arms... or haven't you heard of the "Nuclear Arms Race"... I just wanted you to clarify your thoughts on this issue with me. You've presented your ideas, and there's nothing further to discuss. I don't see how any human being can say that one should be allowed to own any sort of WMD or any sort of gun that is designed to kill people by the second. I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and sooner or later one of us will probably end up insulting the other as the discussion regresses. Let's just leave it at that...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then, if that's the case, why not just tear up the entire Constitution?

Um... just because you don't care about what the Founding Fathers said doesn't mean you don't care about what the Constitution says.

There is more than one way in statutory interpretation, and while original intent is a common one, I prefer a reasonable constructionalism (reasonable meaning of the words - no right is total).

[David Floyd]

Because it serves a purpose to modern society, and we still want it around.

No, you want PART of it around

We just make it flexible to accomodate a modern point of view.

But that isn't the intent of the Constitution, nor is that allowed anywhere in the document. There is only one mechanism for expanding or contracting the Constitution/Bill of Rights, and that is an amendment.

It would be silly and time-wasting to ammend the constitution for everything the society wishes to see but may not be strictly constitutional.

How would it be a waste of time to adapt our Supreme Law to what society wants? That is, unless there is not enough societal support for that adaptation, and what you really mean is what the liberals want.

Ergo interpretation, while still maintaining the core frame, is the most sensible path.

Interpretation is fine, but some things are so clear that interpretation is not necessary.

A document that is inflexible will cease to represent the will of the people and then will become irrelevant. I'd rather the Constitution flow more freely into the modern era.

The Constitution is in no way inflexible, provided you have enough support to change it. What could be wrong with that?

[Sava]

While I have a loose interpretation of all of the amendments... I find it hypocritical that many people don't have a problem with all this "War on Terror" searching, seizing, detaining business, but yet God forbid someone messes with the 2nd amendment...

[David Floyd]

nuclear weapons are considered arms... or haven't you heard of the "Nuclear Arms Race"...

That is a misnomer, then. Or rather, a simplification. No one would call it the "Nuclear Ordnance Race", that sounds stupid. But ordnance is indeed what nuclear weapons are.

For a 1783 example, a musket is an arm, while a cannon is ordnance.

I just wanted you to clarify your thoughts on this issue with me. You've presented your ideas, and there's nothing further to discuss.

Then why not just PM me? Public threads imply a willingness to discuss an issue.

I don't see how any human being can say that one should be allowed to own any sort of WMD

Again, not relevant to the 2nd Amendment.

or any sort of gun that is designed to kill people by the second.

Emotional appeal argument - not a rational one. You aren't giving me any reasons why I can own a handgun but not an assault rifle, in the context of the 2nd Amendment, which, again, is the topic at hand.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and sooner or later one of us will probably end up insulting the other as the discussion regresses.

Who's insulting anyone? I'm not gonna start the insults, if that's what you're worried about.

[David Floyd]

While I have a loose interpretation of all of the amendments... I find it hypocritical that many people don't have a problem with all this "War on Terror" searching, seizing, detaining business, but yet God forbid someone messes with the 2nd amendment...

Fortunately, I strongly oppose both the "War on Terror" and related issues AND encroachments on the 2nd

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That is a misnomer, then. Or rather, a simplification. No one would call it the "Nuclear Ordnance Race", that sounds stupid. But ordnance is indeed what nuclear weapons are.

It's a symmantical issue. But the broadest definition of arms includes all sorts of weapons. You are refering to the different classifications of military weaponry (which BTW, is your own interpretation of the constitutional use of the word arms).

For a 1783 example, a musket is an arm, while a cannon is ordnance.

Yes, but its not incorrect to refer to cannons as "arms".

Then why not just PM me? Public threads imply a willingness to discuss an issue.

I still want to discuss the issue with others, not just you.

Again, not relevant to the 2nd Amendment.

The cyclic rate of modern machine guns is by no means an emotional argument. It's a simple fact that machine guns are designed to kill people faster than bolt action rifles.

Emotional appeal argument - not a rational one. You aren't giving me any reasons why I can own a handgun but not an assault rifle, in the context of the 2nd Amendment, which, again, is the topic at hand.

My fault for not being more specific. Assault rifles kill more people faster than a handgun. For home defense, a handgun or a rifle is perfectly capable of stopping an intruder. An assault rifle is only needed in the even of your house getting invaded by North Korea... please don't tell me you think that will happen.

Who's insulting anyone? I'm not gonna start the insults, if that's what you're worried about.

Nah, I'm worried I might start the insults ... and I've been so good lately, Ming

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Fortunately, I strongly oppose both the "War on Terror" and related issues AND encroachments on the 2nd

Good. Despite our differences on this issue, I'm glad to hear you are consistent.

[monkspider]

I find it both strange and amusing that some treat the constitution up as some sort of divinely inspired document and the founding fathers a polytheistic group of deities. That to question any part of the constitution is a blasphemy of the highest order and grounds for immediate persecution. I just find that quite odd.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one would call it the "Nuclear Ordnance Race", that sounds stupid.

BULL! Now you are making things up. If we called it 'Nuclear Ordinance Race' that would be normal and would sound normal and 'Nuclear Arms' would sound stupid. They called it Nuclear Arms for a reason.

[Sava]

Originally posted by monkspider
I find it both strange and amusing that some treat the constitution up as some sort of divinely inspired document and the founding fathers a polytheistic group of deities. That to question any part of the constitution is a blasphemy of the highest order and grounds for immediate persecution. I just find that quite odd.

You have to work within the system or you get "detained"... personally, I think we should start from scratch... but that would require... uhmm... revo... uhhm... yeah that R word

[David Floyd]

OK, fine - let's drop the arms vs. ordnance debate. I'm trying to make it easier for Sava. Personally, I think there is a difference, but I don't really care what you call them, because either way, weapons are protected.

The cyclic rate of modern machine guns is by no means an emotional argument. It's a simple fact that machine guns are designed to kill people faster than bolt action rifles.

Duh. So what?

My fault for not being more specific. Assault rifles kill more people faster than a handgun.

Duh. So what?

For home defense, a handgun or a rifle is perfectly capable of stopping an intruder.

In many cases this is correct. But what does home defense have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I don't see home defense mentioned in the 2nd Amendment - I don't see "...as long as arms are used in home defense" at the end of it.

monkspider,

I find it both strange and amusing that some treat the constitution up as some sort of divinely inspired document and the founding fathers a polytheistic group of deities. That to question any part of the constitution is a blasphemy of the highest order and grounds for immediate persecution. I just find that quite odd.

Seems as if you would support a set of documents that, in many ways, were inspired from Christianity. At least according to the Founders - that was their clear intent.

In any case, treating the Constitution as a "divinly inspired document" is not really the issue. Treating it as the Supreme Law of the United States IS the issue. If you wanna change that, fine, but you would have to repeal the Constitution, through Constitutional means. Good luck finding a Constitutional way to abolish the Constitution

[Felch]

It's called a Constitutional Convention.