Yes, you are because you're making statements above that I didn't make and then responding to them as if they were my statements. That is the definition of a strawman argument. For example, please point out where I said 'suck it up' as part of my argument. I didn't but you portrayed my argument as that and then responded to it. No, she could take the bus. She could clean homes around her home. She could be a live in maid. She could ride a bike. She could get a ride from someone else. She could do something else. She doesn't HAVE to have a car. It is funny though that someone who has a maid claims not to have the capability to go without their car. That's rich (pun intended). All of these are the same arguments, and none of them are true. You're talking about convenience, not necessity, with the possible exception of someone who is transporting equipment. Even then that isn't an example of a personal automobile. Your whole notion of jobs as permanence is flawed and myopic. That's because you don't value a gun. That's your right. But the argument is not about whether you value a gun or not. It's about the relative impact on us vs someone's right to choose. The impact of the automobile is simply devestating to the planet, to the country, and to us individually in terms that outright swamp those surrounding the handgun. Yet you won't even consider that anyone can do without a car. That is what is flat out awful. You aren't willing to consider any decrease in your convenience or lifestyle to give up something that is overwhelming bad. Instead you hide behind strawmen and red herrings to console yourself. Do we need ambulances? Well, yes. Does every family in Houston need two plus cars. No, they don't. You're missing the forest for the trees.
Need is a different argument. You may not need or even see a need for guns, but that does not mean it does not exist. The people who setup this country saw the need, and made it a promised right. So either say you dislike the constitution or drop need from your argument. Our argument was one of public safety.
1. Ahhh...got it on the strawman part. I misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry about that. I didn't necessarily mean to put those arguments on you...they were just the only arguments I could formulate to the contrary of my own; 2. I have to have a car to do my job. I have to be able to get to clients...to depositions...to mediations....to the courthouse. I can not represent my clients without being able to get there. I suppose you can argue then that I could just change jobs. I don't see that as realistic. And in the end, whether it's me or someone else, someone has to do the job I do...and it requires an automobile. 3. I like you too much to continue this discussion, because it's gotten way too personal. In the end, I find the metaphor to be highly unpersuasive. But it's not worth this.
I'd argue the people who wrote the Second Amendment saw the need for a right. I'd also argue that was an entirely different cultural context than the one we live in today.
I would counter with the second is the only in the Bill of Rights that plainy orders the right right "shall not be infringed" So if you think the amendment is old and outdated, change it through the way it can be changed legally. Otherwise realize you are in the minority and accept it.
1. the first part is laughable. others say, "the right shall be preserved..." others say, "the right shall not be violated..." the First Amendment says Congress can't make a law "respecting" various rights... That there is something MORE special about the Second Amendment than the First or any other because they didn't use the word "infringe" is just silly. It's more a product of sentence structure than anything else. 2. it's not necessary. courts have re-interpreted what the bill of rights mean over and over and over and over again. it's kept lawyers busy for years. the rights are protected...what that practically means is an entirely different thing.
they have argued that. and they've won. the interpretations of those statutes do not look the same today as they did 10 years ago...and those didn't look the same as those 50 years ago...and those didn't look the same of those 100 years ago. these amendments have been re-interpreted in context over and over again. it's not an either/or, all in or all out proposition. remember, before the court re-interpreted the 14th Amendment, what the District of Columbia or any state did with respect to firearms wasn't even a Constitutional question. it was left for the states to decide with the bill of rights merely as a compact between the people and the federal government
I agree the proper path is to go through the outlined process for changing the Constitution if you don't like the amendment. However, if you can't that doesn't mean you're in the minority. It takes a pretty overwhelming consensus to change the Constitution.
Max, can you give an example that would be as extreme as reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment to mean outlawing personal firearms? There is wiggle room for interpretations. For instance, exactly how much right to privacy the 4th Amendment gives you is a result of give and take, but I personally know of no case where something has been 'reinterpreted' to be the opposite of what is written in the Bill of Rights.
This is just outlawing a kind of firearm, right? A handgun? Haven't we already done that before....even on the federal level there was legislation banning certain assault weapons. I'd have to think about your question with regard in other areas...it's been a long time since i took Constitutional Law!
The guns weren't banned. It was a ban on the production and importation of new guns of a specific type. Technically, there isn't any type of weapon outlawed on the federal level, and there never has been. I can even show you where to pick up a functional field artillery piece if you want. You just can't get a brand new one. But I guess you are correct in that on a state level, many states do not permit ownership of such things.
I guess I don't see this as all that different...it's saying a certain type of gun in a certain place is outlawed. We have legit restrictions of free speech as to time and place....even on public property... We have legit reasons to put the fourth amendment aside as to place...particularly in an airport...
You don't have unfettered privacy rights in your own home under the 4th Amendment. None of these rights are absolute. Not one. They're almost like value statements we hold up to judge each context presented...each fact scenario presented.
Yes you do. There has to be a warrant for a search and a judge must be convinced before this warrant is issued. You MAY not have privacy in a telephone booth but in your house you have, and you only lose this right when it is possible you are doing illegal activities.
You fail to see the difference in restriction and prohibition. The people who will make the decision understand the difference. I wonder which way they will see it?
The 2nd amendment states: "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." Individual right to own a gun or a States' right to maintain a well regulated militia? I tend to read it as referencing a state's right to a well regulated milita, not an individual right. I think the courts will see it this way too. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not state or private restraints, and this is where I believe the court's decision will rest.
