Gun control/2nd Amendment

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, you want PART of it around

No, I want it all around. I just think that if it is the will of the people to expand the interpretation of it, it is the right to do so. I don't consider the Constitution sacred.

But that isn't the intent of the Constitution,

Don't care, as those men are dead. Their intent 200+ years ago is irrelevant to modern society.

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.

You can't argue against my belief that the Constitution should be open to the interpretation and desires of the people currently living by saying the Constitution doesn't allow for that, since I'm saying that even if it doesn't allow for that, the will of the people supercedes is more important. That would be circular.

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.

No, I'm just saying there are many instances when there is a consensus in society for something being right that isn't constitutional, and that to have to go through the arduous ammendment process for all such instances would be a serious hinerance to the country. Ergo the SCOTUS is there to guage modern sentiment and supervise the Constitution accordingly.

Gun control is a perfect example. The American population overwhelmingly, by a huge margin, supports and wants some form of regulation on guns. It varies in degree, but most want it. So SCOTUS has ruled, consistently, that gun regulation is permissible. Your strict view of the constitution doesn't allow for that. I'm saying, so what? Most people want it, the SCOTUS says it's reasonable, so gun regulation is okay.

The recent case of the death penalty for retarded people is another case. The perceptions of society have changed over time, and SCOTUS changed the interpretation of "cruel and unusual" accordingly. I see no problem with this, nor any need to ammend the constitution every time the country's attitude changes in this regard.

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

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

From a logistical standpoint, it is a problem. Any society that so rigidly adhered to a document that was so difficult to change would find itself in a terrible position of social and political deadlock. One of a society's strengths is its ability to adapt to changing social trends. Without this ability, stagnation occurs. To have to go through the ammendment process all the time would be disasterous.

So it's simple. Keep the Constitution, but to a certain degree it's open to interpretation and a little bit of fudging. SCOTUS will keep that in reasonable check.

[Sava]

At the risk of sounding stupid, I have to ask... what does the acronym, SCOTUS stand for?

[Az]

Supreme Court Of The United States.

[korn469]

gsmoove23

Wow, I'm sure glad only 5 of those kids died. I guess the madman should have practised more, that way maybe he could have aimed for the head. Maybe he would have been more effective with a samurai sword.

you missed my point, everyone seems to be in an uproar over semi automatic, or fully automatic assault rifles, and nobody seems to really mention banning shotguns, while in reality your average criminal will be more deadly if they are carrying a shotgun instead of an ak

, but in the absence of the need for militias, the uninfringed right of the 'people' to bear arms is in question

also there is still a need for militias to protect a free state! the federal government today is far more intrusive and orwellian than the federal government of 200 years ago, while we don't need militias to protect us from invasion by another country; people organizing to resist the government in peaceful ways when it tries to limit firearm freedoms is a very good thing for all of us, the simple act of owning a firearm has encouraged many people to take a stand against the abuses of power by the federal government, the NRA has done more to help protect people's privacy rights than many privacy organizations like EPIC, simply because it is better funded and connected than those groups

Boris

i feel that even without the second amendment, people would have the right to own firearms because of the nineth amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

if you take this and the second amendment together, then there is a clear case for the individual ownership of firearms

EDIT: just like if you take the 9th and the 4th together you get a strong case for privacy rights, and i'd like to bring up one other point, the government left one of the most important powers to the people, and that is the power of juries, if the framers had of trusted government they would have allowed Judges to decide on a person's guilt or innocence, instead they took that power away from the government and left it to ordinary people

[Sava]

Okay, that's what I thought... wasn't sure... thank you!

[gsmoove23]

Korn, I didn't miss the point, I would ban shotguns too, though I don't see how they are necessarily more lethal. It seems they are more lethal in certain circumstances, no more. However, lethality isn't the only reason for banning such weapons, being able to inflict wounds on people, or many people at distances great or small, regardless of whether they are lethal or not is also a pretty good reason.

As for the necessity of militias to protect citizens from their own government I would argue this is also unecessary in the modern world. The vast difference in power between an organized military today, and any organization of rabble that might call themselves a militia, even if more effective and lethal arms were NOT banned, makes the idea of them being necessary or even effective ludicrous. You've also made a good point yourself, with the great successes peaceful movements have had in the modern age (and certainly the current war on terrorism) violent movements have been called into question.

As for the 9th amendment, (thanks for this, I was unaware of it) I think there is a good case to be made that allowing guns to proliferate legally without various pragmatic and practical regulations is a danger to the general welfare of the people.

[Sprayber]

The Founding Fathers never in their wildest dreams imagine that the consitution would survive as long as it did. They did not persume to speak for citizens 2 hundred plus years in the future. They debated, argued, and compromised their way into a document that is allowed to change over time as the country changes. But one which doesn't change too much too fast. I firmly believe that people should be allowed to own and use weapons as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. However, There has to be some regulation in our present society of some type. The problem comes from the nuts on both sides who either want no regulation at all or want every firearm banned outright. They are the ones that threaten to press the issue to a final solution at some point in the future. But such is the American way.

We still play the game of trying to apply the ideas of Washington, Franklin, and the others to our current situation. Each side claims to be able to channel the spirts of the founding fathers and apply modern problems to old ideas. In a way I guess it's a good thing because at least we still try to fit the ideas of the constitution into modern life.

[David Floyd]

You can't argue against my belief that the Constitution should be open to the interpretation and desires of the people currently living by saying the Constitution doesn't allow for that, since I'm saying that even if it doesn't allow for that, the will of the people supercedes is more important. That would be circular.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to avoid either tyranny by government or tyranny of "the will of the people.

Most people want it, the SCOTUS says it's reasonable, so gun regulation is okay.

If SCOTUS bases it's decision on the fact that most people support it, then gun control is NOT OK, absent a Constitutional amendment.

korn,

i feel that even without the second amendment, people would have the right to own firearms because of the nineth amendment

I definitely agree.

Sprayber,

They debated, argued, and compromised their way into a document that is allowed to change over time as the country changes.

Bingo. Hence, amendments.

I firmly believe that people should be allowed to own and use weapons as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. However, There has to be some regulation in our present society of some type.

That's nice. Pass an amendment.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Azazel

Sorry, there's a typo. It should be exclude. The point was that the forbidden weapons would be allowed to be used lightly by police and armed forces (except for nuclear weapons, of course). I hope this clears things up.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Japher

However, it seems to me that most cases where a gun "accidentily" kills some one, it is not in the hands of the person who purchased the weapon. It is their carelessness in storing the weapon that is a greater threat than the knowledge of safety possessed by the owner.

That's true and that's also why hunting rifles and handguns that civilians can have a license for in Finland, have to keep them in a locked and safe place like a rifle cabinet or pistol box. I think that's at least something that should be done in the States too. But please, for God's sake, don't allow all kinds of weapons for civilian use like DF suggests. That'll only result in more violence and fear, or would you like to see your neighbour going around with e.g. a machine gun?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to avoid either tyranny by government or tyranny of "the will of the people.

And that's why we have the SCOTUS to ensure such tyranny doesn't happen. Often, that is.

[gsmoove23]

Am I the only one that thinks if firearms are not sufficiently regulated they pose a serious threat to the welfare and lives of American citizens thereby making regulations legal under the 9th amendment? I don't think you have to do any shenanigans with the original document, its all right there.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rasbelin

Already that list would permit people could have their paramilitary activities to "keep their homes safe." Well, I suppose I'd better stay outside the States if you can soon walk around with a few nades in your bag or have a simple SMG in your violin case. I can't see how one can be proud for all that, but maybe MtG finds guns and fire arms "fun", so that he needs a few to protect himself.

Come on, people! You're not supposed to be lurking at home with an arsenal of weapons, right?

Actually, I tend to use knives for personal defense - much more effective at close range.

Given that I stated agreement with licensing and background checks, I don't see a need for a blanket prohibition on ownership of those weapon types when licensees for them would have passed criminal background checks, etc.

Besides, skinny-poppers just look cool.

[korn469]

I think there is a good case to be made that allowing guns to proliferate legally without various pragmatic and practical regulations is a danger to the general welfare of the people.

gsmoove23

ok you asked for it, and you've got it, please make your case that guns by themself are a danger to the welfare of the people, and not some other factor. because i'm willing to bet you that your research will uncover areas with relatively high number of firearms per capita have lower crime rates, and possibly even lower number of gun accident rates that areas with low numbers of firearms per capita
EDIT: all of those areas being inside of the US of course, i don't think it would be accurate to compare the murder rate in Washington D.C. to the one in Oslo and blame it on guns

i also read in american rifleman (which i acknowledge is a NRA media outlet, and if you can find another more reliable source i'd accept that) that more people die each year because of bee stings than gun accidents

[gsmoove23]

Well certainly, I think those bees should be regulated. My argument wouldn't be that guns kill people, though I believe that stands on its own. I am not arguing to ban guns. What I am arguing is that the government be allowed to create practical legislation regulating the distribution of firearms. Before someone gains a gun license their backgrounds should be checked and if they have a history of violent behaviour they should be rejected. I believe gun training should be mandatory before a license is given and why not treat it like a driver's license. I believe that creating an atmosphere where legal gun ownership is a responsibility, not a right, will have a beneficial effect on the welfare of the people as opposed to the detrimental effect not taking these actions has. What's so difficult about that?