Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
Indy wrote:I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.
Indy wrote:I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
We should be absolutely clear about what Delaney is arguing here: He is a) agreeing with Jefferson that “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind,” b) contending that “progress” suggests that the individual right to keep and bear arms is now counterproductive, and c) concluding that it is time therefore to make a “change in law and constitution” — in other words, to repeal the Second Amendment.
Well, first this guy is ranting towards a comedian's tweet. Really? Second, he makes a jump in logic in his 3rd point by saying that if the amendment doesn't fit as it, it must be repealed. I hardly hear any people say we need to get rid of all guns. Most people just want more regulations about who can buy and use them. You know, like we do with cars...
And again, in the parlance of the day, well-regulated meant in good working order. Your opinion on the matter is moot after the Heller decision. As Cooke said, if you don't like it, amend it.
And again, in the parlance of the day, well-regulated meant in good working order.
That just isn't true. The people that wrote these things read and wrote in multiple languages and were very particular with their chosen words. Well-regulated means something that is controlled properly by rule or law. It should be harder (or at least as hard) to get a firearm as it is to get a driver's license, a business license, or even a liquor license. For some reason some people think that is no longer would be constitutional. I don't get that.
The authors of the Heller decision disagree with you. Don't like it? Pass an Amendment.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
. . .
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may
cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the
operative clause (“The separation of church and state
being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall
have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes
clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of
interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause.
...
As Sutherland explains, the key 18th-century English case on the
effect of preambles, Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314, 24 Eng. Rep.
404 (1716), stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the
effect of the words of the purview.” J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory
Construction, 47.04 (N. Singer ed. 5th ed. 1992). This rule was
modified in England in an 1826 case to give more importance to the
preamble, but in America “the settled principle of law is that the
preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where
the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.”
...
The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body
...
Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude
that this natural meaning was also the meaning that
“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances,
“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
...
To be sure, Congress need not conscript
every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in
Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize,
discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon
the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied
men, the federally organized militia may consist of
a subset of them. Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms")
...
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s
prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified
in a written Constitution.
...
In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had
been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified
the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which
analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well
regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free
state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .
“The corollary, from the first position is, that the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
could by any rule of construction be conceived
to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such
a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any
blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt
it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint
on both.” Rawle 121–122.20
Like Tucker, Rawle regarded the English game laws as
violating the right codified in the Second Amendment.
We the people can do whatever we want at any time, Constitution or not. If we the people decide that the color blue is totally offensive we can make a law making it illegal if we so choose.
No amount of quotes from dead people changes this fact. It's the Rebel flag. Nobody could force them to remove it until public opinion changed and now it's gone overnight. If America decides that guns should be well regulated by regulations then it will happen no matter what the Constitution or the NRA says. Republicans had no problem amending the Constitution taking out slavery. It's all a public opinion war now.
Dan H wrote:And again, in the parlance of the day, well-regulated meant in good working order. Your opinion on the matter is moot after the Heller decision. As Cooke said, if you don't like it, amend it.
Well regulated MILITIA not well regulated guns. Also, no. It actually meant basically what it means now.
Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk
In the interest of fair debate, though, if the first amendment is untouchable, why do you support tax breaks for your church? It's the same constitution.
Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk
Dan H wrote:And again, in the parlance of the day, well-regulated meant in good working order. Your opinion on the matter is moot after the Heller decision. As Cooke said, if you don't like it, amend it.
Well regulated MILITIA not well regulated guns. Also, no. It actually meant basically what it means now.
Sent from my Nexus 6 to annoy Superbone using Tapatalk
Again, Heller disagrees with you. You can deny it all you want but the case has been decided.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms")
I suppose if you wanted to Federally mandate proper discipline and training you might have a leg to stand on, but you're approaching from the basis of regulating the keep and bear arms part, which the Court also pointed out isn't impacted by the prefatory clause. It's an explanation for the need to keep and bear arms, but not a limit on it. The court rightly pointed out that there are other rights implicit to keeping and bearing arms not impacted by the existence, or not, of a militia.
Don't like it? Pass an Amendment. Same goes for churches being tax exempt. Campaign to get the laws changed if it offends you so much.
I think the 2nd Amendment as written was meant to say that people should be allowed to have guns. That is, I don't think it was meant only for extremely highly regulated purchase of guns, and I don't think it was meant to be a right ONLY because of the concept of a militia being important. The folks who try to play word games with the 2nd Amendment as a way of saying that guns today should be heavily scaled back and regulated, or allowed only to people in a "militia", that's not my way of thinking about it.
I just think that part of the Constitution has become out of date and should be changed. I don't think it is nearly as important for each citizen to own a gun any more, nor to keep a militia at the ready. And guns have gotten a lot more fearsome than they were in the 18th century. So I think it should be reworded or amended or something to set the stage for much tighter regulation of guns. (Or, if I had my way, illegalization of gun ownership. But I won't get my way.)
So, if you're pro-gun and are the type of person who likes to keep score, I will make two major concessions here:
1.) I think the current wording of the 2nd Amendment has been correctly interpreted by the courts thus far and shouldn't be overturned by some activist Supreme Court case; and
2.) I admit that if I really got my way, I'd just want to ban / illegalize all guns. Because I know some would think of this as a ridiculous and extreme position to have, and may take some satisfaction from knowing that I admit to holding such a position.
That's actually the exact opposite. Churches being tax exempt has nothing to do with the Constitution. Actually, as Andy pointed out, it appears to be in direct contrast to the 1st amendment.
