Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[Socrates]

So the original meaning of the founders isn't objective?  Again, just as the Bible's original meaning has no objective meaning?  The writer's intent means nothing?

 

Apparently all the founders were paranoid about a tyrannical government just as we are paranoid that a fire will burn down a school.  For that reason, we have sprinkler systems in every modern building....because we are paranoid about a fire breaking out.  Why be so paranoid?

 

Your fluid reasoning makes it impossible to discuss anything since anything objective in your eyes is a condemnation of another position. In that sense, you cannot make any progress in discussing anything since everything is relative and means nothing......unless you arbitrarily decide it means something.  So I ask what do you hope to accomplish in this discussion since you deny anything meaningful yet accuse me of living in a fanciful world?

 

From what I've read, Era doesn't care about the objective meaning of the Constitution nor the intent of the framers - which he dismisses as irrelevant simply because they lived a long time ago.

[Fidei Defensor]

From what I've read, Era doesn't care about the objective meaning of the Constitution nor the intent of the framers - which he dismisses as irrelevant simply because they lived a long time ago.

 

Ad hominem. Unnecessary.

[Era Might]

From what I've read, Era doesn't care about the objective meaning of the Constitution nor the intent of the framers - which he dismisses as irrelevant simply because they lived a long time ago.

 

I am reminded of a quote that gets bandied about: "Well behaved women seldom make history."

 

This entire discussion is quite funny considering we're talking about a constitution written by men who began their enterprise claiming that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

I don't even want to abolish our government, simply make it work for us rather than slavishly trying to enshrine some fixed ideology around it.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Winchester]

Not sure, guess I was just assuming.

 

I guess I'm just asking what you think is the way forward to reshape the role of the state in society? If we accept the silliness of a citizen's revolution, then what can we do within the social shell that we have?

 

I don't think killing will solve the problem. It will be a long haul, convincing people they have no right to aggression, and that the State is not somehow granted an exception to the proscription against in aggression. In the meantime, we can pursue jury nullification, civil disobedience, recruitment of police officers into organizations that reject protection of the State (which is what our current law enforcement and courts are designed to do) in favor of protection of private citizens. I don't expect to see a real change in the State within my lifetime. Too many people think killing people for not obeying politicians is a means to peace.

[eagle_eye222001]

What do I hope to accomplish in discussion? Just that, discussion.

 

You don't seem to have any way to resolve disagreement except to claim objectivity, and therefore the right of way. I am willing to work in a society where other people see things differently. I am even willing to let other people make decisions in society that I do not agree with. But I also claim a right for my voice, and my actions, in the midst of it.

 

There are scholars, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc. very well versed in these matters who disagree. Contrary to what you suggest, I find them all "meaningful," though I don't think any of them have some "objective" view of things.

 

 

Yes, I claim to be right......how dare I DO such a thing!

 

I discuss things to find truth.  Discussing for the sake of discussing is a waste of my time and unproductive.  Reason and logic are tools to follow order of thought to build us to truth.  Ignorance of such only breaks the ladders to truth and leads nowhere.

 

Majority is not truth by logic...so just because people disagree with me, means nothing.  It means they are all wrong until one simple person can use simple logic and reason to point out otherwise.

 

You should remember this when the idea that legislating morality is okay because its the "truth." The Constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, unless its a morality thing, then just go for it!"  

 

In addition, I couldn't give a flying fig what the Founding Fathers have said. The words of the Constitution are the only thing that hold weight. No one is obligated to follow the ideas of the Fathers. They are only obligated to follow the words of the Constitution.

 

I believe you will see I am consistent on interpreting the Constitution with regard to morality.

 

I believe in the words....just sometimes people have a disagreement on what a word means.....like "militia."  Since the modern understanding is different from the 18th century understanding it's kinda needed to go back to the thought of such words back then.

[Era Might]

I discuss things to find truth. 

 

Good luck with that. Personally, I find that the more I discuss, the less I know.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Era Might]

I don't think killing will solve the problem. It will be a long haul, convincing people they have no right to aggression, and that the State is not somehow granted an exception to the proscription against in aggression. In the meantime, we can pursue jury nullification, civil disobedience, recruitment of police officers into organizations that reject protection of the State (which is what our current law enforcement and courts are designed to do) in favor of protection of private citizens. I don't expect to see a real change in the State within my lifetime. Too many people think killing people for not obeying politicians is a means to peace.

 

Sounds like a step in the right direction, but I think a lot of our hopes are dependent on a future "new man" (what the Marxists were pinning their hopes on as well). I don't rule out the possibility of a more peaceful man, as human beings are remarkably malleable, but it seems like "aggression" as a driving force in society is a constant. We shroud it in myth and ideology (manifest destiny, etc) but it's hard to imagine a world with radically changed behavior. I tend to look at the biblical outlook on humanity as a reference...in the bible, things are bound to get worse the farther along we go, not better. But, I wouldn't want to use that as a self-defeating prophecy.

[PhuturePriest]

And I think there is a duty for the government to regulate them, to a certain extent. I dont support disarming law abiding people, or telling them that only certain guns/accessories are ok.

 

Just FYI, Assault Rifles(meaning full auto rifles) have been heavily regulated since 1934, and new production of them was banned in 1986. Preban ones each come with nearly a  year of Government NFA paperwork, background checks, and then cost upwards of 20,000$ for something like a full auto m16. They are incredibly expensive, and barely anyone owns them at all.

 

the other ones you see in the news, are not assault rifles, they merely look like them. They dont function the same, and in fact are not significantly different from millions of hunting/target shooting guns in the USA for the last 110 years, they just have a more modern(sorta, the AR was designed in the 60s) appearance.

 

 

 

 

And that doesnt mean the church would support the same laws as you, just that it is the responsibility of government to enact some laws on the topic. Such as not selling to criminals, etc. If the church has gotten more specific, i would be glad to read it.

 

No. If we had unarmed police(truly unarmed, even the UK police have access to true military spec guns), i would still want guns for self defense, hunting and recreation and the same ones would still be good at it. However, it would make me a little less angry at arbitrary restrictions if the police went along with them.

 

No cop would ever be happy walking a beat with a handgun that has half of its ammo capacity blocked off, because it is a needless handicap against criminals, especially so when the criminals are likely not following the law. No one who has ever needed a gun has ever needed *less* ammo.

 

But if cops need these more capable weapons to deal with and defend from criminals, I dont see why civilians dont. After all, criminals attack civilians WAY more than they ever attack police, and generally the police are responding to deal with criminals that are already posing threats to civilians.

 

The last paragraph reminds me of a quote from the character Joe Swanson on Family Guy: "Sorry. Police policy states we can't do anything about unlawfulness until it is too late."

[Fidei Defensor]

Yes, I claim to be right......how dare I DO such a thing!

 

I discuss things to find truth.  Discussing for the sake of discussing is a waste of my time and unproductive.  Reason and logic are tools to follow order of thought to build us to truth.  Ignorance of such only breaks the ladders to truth and leads nowhere.

 

Majority is not truth by logic...so just because people disagree with me, means nothing.  It means they are all wrong until one simple person can use simple logic and reason to point out otherwise.

 

 

I believe you will see I am consistent on interpreting the Constitution with regard to morality.

 

I believe in the words....just sometimes people have a disagreement on what a word means.....like "militia."  Since the modern understanding is different from the 18th century understanding it's kinda needed to go back to the thought of such words back then.

 

See, that's the thing. The Constitution is words. We follow what the words mean. It doesn't really matter what they meant back then, what matters is what it says.  The Constitution doesn't have a preface that says "the words within carry the meanings as of 1787 and shall only be considered valid with said meanings."  That's the point of the Judicial Branch, to judge.  

 

Since you're so keen on the Founding Fathers, lets take a look at what Alexander Hamilton had to say about the power of the courts-

 

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

[Winchester]

Sounds like a step in the right direction, but I think a lot of our hopes are dependent on a future "new man" (what the Marxists were pinning their hopes on as well). I don't rule out the possibility of a more peaceful man, as human beings are remarkably malleable, but it seems like "aggression" as a driving force in society is a constant. We shroud it in myth and ideology (manifest destiny, etc) but it's hard to imagine a world with radically changed behavior. I tend to look at the biblical outlook on humanity as a reference...in the bible, things are bound to get worse the farther along we go, not better. But, I wouldn't want to use that as a self-defeating prophecy.

 

I don't expect a new man. There will always be evil men. Which is why I think it's extraordinarily stupid to concentrate power in the State.

[Fidei Defensor]

I don't expect a new man. There will always be evil men. Which is why I think it's extraordinarily stupid to concentrate power in the State.

 

May God protect us.

[4588686]

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

[Winchester]

Our public authorities appear to be the same as the rest of us.

 

http://www.copblock.org/1595/making-the-case-for-more-police-accountability/

[KnightofChrist]

So then really we have two parties of death

If it makes you feel better sure why not. I don't belong to either party so I don't care. Still if Obama and the party of death and slavery actually cared about the lives of children they would shut down the industry that directly targets children and the mass-murder of children. It's hypocritical and proof that such persons in power cannot be trusted to take away parts or all of the 2nd amendment. Edited January 18, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

You should remember this when the idea that legislating morality is okay because its the "truth." The Constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, unless its a morality thing, then just go for it!"  

This is veering off-topic, but laws respecting an establishment of religion and laws concerning morality are not the same thing.

 

An "establishment of religion" in legal parlance referred specifically to an official national religion subsidized by tax dollars - such as the Church of England.  America was to have no such official state-sponsored  denomination.  The establishment clause of the first amendment means simply that Congress can make no laws that would set up a tax-funded "Church of America."

 

Despite the claims of hysterical leftists, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a law which takes into account moral principles.  All good law is concerned in some way with morality (what is right and wrong).  Laws against murder, theft, fraud, rape, slavery, and any number of things are based on moral principle - that these things are wrong and must not be legally tolerated.

 

There can be legitimate debate about whether some laws concerning morality are prudent - but that has nothing to do with whether they are constitutional.

 

The American founding fathers (not that you give a fig what they say) were unanimous regarding the importance of virtue and morality to law and good governance.

 

 

 

In addition, I couldn't give a flying fig what the Founding Fathers have said. The words of the Constitution are the only thing that hold weight. No one is obligated to follow the ideas of the Fathers. They are only obligated to follow the words of the Constitution.

 

 

See, that's the thing. The Constitution is words. We follow what the words mean. It doesn't really matter what they meant back then, what matters is what it says.  The Constitution doesn't have a preface that says "the words within carry the meanings as of 1787 and shall only be considered valid with said meanings."  That's the point of the Judicial Branch, to judge.  

The words of the Constitution regarding arms are: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Pretty straightforward - the government can't take away right of the people to bear weapons.

 

And (while this is should be obvious), of course the intent of the authors of a law or anything else regarding their meaning is important to its proper interpretation.  If you wrote down something important, would you want others twisting it to mean something completely different?

 

Properly judging is completely different from changing the meaning of the words of the constitution to completely different than what the framer's intended.  Judging means doing one's best to correctly ascertain the meaning of the law, and apply it to particular situations - not (as too many judges do) playing Humpty Dumpty with the Constitution.  ("Words mean whatever I want them to mean!")