desert scar -- huh??? i need more book-learning to understand your post. i'm not smart enough, i think!! Legislative history indicates that "Arms" mean guns...yes I'm a strict constitutionalist...but that means I don't just read the words...I read the comments of the people who wrote the words...to find the intent of the law. ------------------
Timing: Look, MadMax, who's a conservative, also agrees with me that you have to look at the context surrounding the Constitution. That's called "interpretivism." It's the most popular framework for constitutional law among conservatives. I disagree, but respect this opinion But taking the language as it stands in the document without attempting to understand it further by historical research... that's something altogether different. Why was the 2nd Amendment created? To ensure that the state's always had protection against the federal government. Or maybe jus to ensure that the states didn't *have* to rely on the feds if they needed a little muscle to perform tasks. Either way... at the time, guns were the only form of "arms" there were. Now, there are many different weapons. These weapons would be essential to fulfilling the dictates of the 2nd Amendment if interpreted this way. See the problem that Shanna raises? If you look at the historical context... it's very possible that the Constitution requires that tanks be available for everyone to purchase at will. From this perspective, the 2nd Amendment is gutted... I don't think any of us want to see Timothy McVeigh flying a stealth bomber. MadMax: No point in going into that, I think . ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 13, 2001).]
MadMax: The fact that for the past 60 years the Supreme Court has refused to hear any case in which the claimaint bases his argument on an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that provides for an individual right to bear arms is pretty damning to your argument, here. If there were an individual right to bear arms, wouldn't it be likely that the Supreme Court would at least have accepted the case and defined the limits of it? That's what happened with the limitations on free speech. It's not that the Supreme Court has allowed this supposed right to be limited... they've never acknowledged it to exist! The one case on record, in fact, indicates that it probably doesn't at all! ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
That's odd, now we some conservatives saying "forget the constitution", forget what is right, forget what is an American principle or not, guns are here to stay so we might as well deal with it. (How many conservatives will say forget immigrants, forget drugs, because they are here to stay. They are certainly a lot more harder to stop than the prevalence of guns, for a number of reasons. Although admittingly libertarians and Beto will support these issues of freedom, at least they are consistent). No, I'd rather stick to debatable issues, both in terms of the constitution, logic, what is the right thing to do, etc. At least MM and I and others or going down this road. MM. The authors of the constitution no more felt "arms" referred to modern machine guns and assault weapons than they did "nuclear arms" or bombs. If we stick by your rules, you have a universal right to own single shot muskets or single shot pistols. If you are a literalist (strict constructionist as you define yourself), or focus on the literal constistution plus what the framers thought, you are stuck on 18th century weaponry, not modern weaponry--including most modern handguns. (Note, this is using your own logic and constitutionalist position.) Finally, now this is my opinion, I don't believe unfettered individual ownership of guns helps keeps us free from a oppresive government that has access to satellites, tanks, nukes, helicopters, smart weapons, etc. I can respect if you think it does, I just don't think a few handguns mean a hill of beans in modern society towards this aim of our founders (keeping government "honest") and has hugely negative implications on society (accidental death, mass murders). I am Ok with guns for home protection--provided adequate training and a few other conditions. But this is because I think it is reasonable, not some right spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Because their isn't an inalienable right specific modern high powered handguns, the rules and regulations must be agreed by the populace as with any other weapon. Finally, a note about the constitition. When persons' talk about the right to privacy, etc., it is a consititutional right in a sense. Only domains the founders specifically proscribed government to have influence over was governement allowed to interveen on (infringe individuals' liberty). The Bill of Rights was really designed just to emphasize (or underline if you will) some such areas where government should not interfer with its citizens liberties. By all means the BoR wasn't supposed to indicate the ONLY rights government wasn't allowed to infringe on. It is not too hard to argue on constitutional grounds that Americans have a right to privacy, because the constitition does not spell out government powers to freely and indiscriminately search or spy on someones home, carrige, habits, personhood or the like. To me it is clear that the "arms control" issue reflects a balance between threats to society and individuals rights to own weaponry--as the exercise of all our rights do (including one of the most underlined right--free speech). You clearly acknolwedge threats to society are limits on other individual rights (e.g., free speech), whats the problem with viewing weapon control similarly. My personal view is those aspects to our lives that don't pose a direct threat to others or society government should generally stay out of. I think this is a reasonable, "constructinist" if you will, view of the constitution as well as the principles of our nation's founding. It is fine if you disagree but you know where I stand. Finally, this is my last pst for a week because I am going out of town, others will have to carry on the debate--Haven, Shanna and Rimbaud, please watch my back .
I would call your opinions "hogwash". The framers obviously intended arms to mean firearms, not cannons and warships in their times nor nukes, chemical weapons, and tanks in modern day. Do you think they believed every citizen had a right to own a cannon and a warship? Do you really think they wrote this without the knowledge that technology would improve firearms? Geez.... Keep going around and around, farther into the depths of absurdity. It really doesn't matter. ------------------ The death penalty SUCKS.
Timing: You haven't read the surrounding history. It's really obvious. Why? Because all the rhetoric at the time *did* concenr allowing the citizenry to have the power to overthrow oppressive government. It wasn't NECESSARY at the time to have advanced arms. Owning a warship wouldn't have been feasible. This isn't an "idea." It's knowledge of history. Go to a library and do some reading, before you call history "hogwash." You'll feel pretty foolish after doing so. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
But imagine the worst case scenario that the Founders were trying to protect us from. Imagine a president comes to power who decides that all people in Religious Group X need to be rounded up. OK...now how would that be implemented?? With nuclear weapons?? Would the govt destroy the very land they wish to control??? I don't think so. I think it's more likely that such a scenario would play out with paramilitary groups. Obviously they're better trained and their weapons would be superior..but you could say that some thing about Vietnam or even colonial America. I'll say this...I'd rather have the right than not have the right. I'd rather have the protection than not have the protection. The fear of govt power is healthy, as long as it's not taken to huge extremes. I think it's prudent to be skeptical of the intentions of any organization that wields the power and authority that our federal government wields. I would hate to limit the ability of future generations to protect themselves in a situation like that. As for Desert Scar's opinion on my opinion...it's just not right...sorry. I don't think I'm abandoning a strict constructionist viewpoint by saying that the Founders used the term Arms to mean whatever is appropriate in the current timeframe. Clearly tanks and atom bombs aren't included in comparable terms to the muskets of the late eighteenth century. By comparison, I don't think they meant that the 2nd Amend guarantees the right of citizens to own cannons or the heavy artillery of that day, either. ------------------
MM, IMO, if the government wanted to get you (or a group you belong) whether you are armed or not just would not matter at all. With modern surveillance and weaponry, if they found you it would be over, period. Such persons' only chance would be not having the government know about your true identity, or going into hiding, neither of which being well "armed" facilitates in my view. No way could someone stand up and fight the FBI or ATF in a direct confrontation, let alone fight against our even more advanced military. Thus I just don't think a citizenry well armed with personal weapons (regardless of the types of guns, types of ammo, allowance of hand grenades, etc.) protects against potential unjustly targeted persons/groups, or their certain rights, in any real way in modern society. However the prevalence of cheap, unregulated, high power and rapid-fire weapons does magnify the very real and extensive damage (e.g., potential for mass murders) to the public that a few extremely well armed, unbalanced, individuals can do. These competing constitutional theme is where the weapons control debate should be. Obviously our reading of the first theme (does unlimited individual firearms ownership still serves in keeping a potentially tyrannical government in check) is a key point for which we disagree about weapon control. As for Timing, I think Haven took care of but wanted to add a few things. When you resort to saying "Hogwash" to others views and don't engage in clear thinking about the specific issues at hand (MM, who I disagree with, focused on the theme of protection from government tyranny), it undermines your potential contribution to the debate. Of course the framers didn't conceive of all and only firearms (including modern assault weapons) when they wrote the 2nd amendment and related documents. The framers were thinking of whatever arms would be needed to resist an overbearing government. This is the key principle, not the idea that citizens have unfettered access to firearms for play, sport, home protection, or whatever else. Further, they probably did have muskets and single fire pistols mainly in mind when they wrote the 2nd, because those were the primary weapons of the day and perhaps sufficient at that time to keep the government honest. But the key principle is not that muskets and single fire pistols (or all firearms) are specifically protected class of weapons, but that whatever weapons to keep government honest were protected. Timing, you have to see the forest beyond the trees. No where have I ever read that the 2nd describes that some types of weapons are constitutionally protected (all firearms) and some types are not protected (e.g., Madison or Hamilton never said knives and guns are OK, but other armaments are not OK for citizens to freely have). The real constitutional debate revolves around the role of arms in ensuring freedom from an overbearing government versus the threat some types of arms provide to society. I believe the prevalence of high-powered and multi-round firearms in the individual citizenry provides no greater protection of rights than ones’ bare hands, knives or ownership of single shot weapons does. Further, I don’t have a problem with individual’s owning a double barrel shotgun either as long as the owner abides by some safeguards and doesn’t also claim that all firearms should be freely acquired, traded, and unregulated. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 22, 2001).]
Beto is gone but his thread lives on. He would be proud. At this rate, maybe he'll come back under his newest name to continue the discussion. Whatever that may be. ------------------ Isabel,clutchcity.net lurker since 1996 We are the girls from Norfolk. We don't smoke. We don't drink. Norfolk! Norfolk!
