The second amendment

[ga-hvac-tech]

I am not american (As GA likes to remind me), But I can read, well sort of.
The founding documents are not infinite, as your forefathers clearly knew that over time society evolves, and that changes can be be made, but not lightly.
So if changes are made, using correct due process, than changes would not be "non constitutional"
Good will to all at this time of year.

The 'structure' of our govt is supposed to be a balance of power:

The president,
Congress (house of reps and senate)
the Supreme court

There are lots of other things involved:
All appropriations bills (spending) must originate in the house/reps
Pres is not supposed to legislate (exec orders were NOT part of the founders plan)
Supreme court (SCOTUS) reviews laws and determines if they are in line with the INTENT of the founders view of govt.

Now read that last sentence again: SCOTUS is charged with determining if a law enacted by any other branch of govt lines up with the INTENTIONS the founding fathers laid down. Note this is NOT a floating or growing interpretation, this is what the founders intended.

This last thought is where we get in trouble in the USA... some folks would just pass legislation willy-nilly for this or that reason... while others would carefully be SURE the legislation lines up with the intentions of the founders BEFORE passing it. Care to guess which group is libs and which one is conservs...

BTW: The reason I called you out was noted in a different post: Most countries accept over-bearing countries... the USA is unique in modern history as a bastion of FREEDOM... something it appears to me not many understand fully.

[hearthman]

The 2nd Amendment did not state you must be enlisted in a State Militia to qualify for ownership of "arms". Go fish.

[barbar]

The 'structure' of our govt is supposed to be a balance of power:

The president,
Congress (house of reps and senate)
the Supreme court

There are lots of other things involved:
All appropriations bills (spending) must originate in the house/reps
Pres is not supposed to legislate (exec orders were NOT part of the founders plan)
Supreme court (SCOTUS) reviews laws and determines if they are in line with the INTENT of the founders view of govt.

Now read that last sentence again: SCOTUS is charged with determining if a law enacted by any other branch of govt lines up with the INTENTIONS the founding fathers laid down. Note this is NOT a floating or growing interpretation, this is what the founders intended.

This last thought is where we get in trouble in the USA... some folks would just pass legislation willy-nilly for this or that reason... while others would carefully be SURE the legislation lines up with the intentions of the founders BEFORE passing it. Care to guess which group is libs and which one is conservs...

BTW: The reason I called you out was noted in a different post: Most countries accept over-bearing countries... the USA is unique in modern history as a bastion of FREEDOM... something it appears to me not many understand fully.

In reverse.

The USA is not unique in modern times, even to the point that it is fact a follower, modern doctrine could be said to have started with the Magna Carta, How ever i can agree that the fore fathers were able to write a document on a blank piece of paper without limitations of history. Other countries freedom had to evolve of time. ( fighting conservatism through out time).

There are many wise words written, but is still open to interpretation and change, for me this is very clearly written. They were smart enough to know, that all that was written would not suit for all time. The intention is the constitution would evolve to meet the times. You have to be liberal thinker to look forward, as the past has gone and can not be changed. ( I use the word liberal differently to how you see left wingers)

All balanced govt should have checks and accountability.

I do get the impression that your pres, is sometime seen a king (both sides), as all blame is placed on his head alone. maybe or not, it is good to be able to point a finger at singular entity.

[geerair]

I've been having a lot of fun, lately with those who do not understand the phrase "well regulated" in the context that it was written.



This is taken from the District of Columbia vs Heller decision

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

Interesting reading if you're up to it.

You are in fact correct that the majority opinion defines well regulated in the manner you stated. I retract my intepretation and apologize for my error.


That being said, the pertinent issue here that has been the major point of discussion is the regulation of firearms.

I quote from thr same case you cited. Justice Scalia: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Scalia continues "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the psssession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laes forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buikdings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms."


So in fact we see that in the case, the majority opinion clearly states that regulation of firearms is permitted and passes constitutional muster.

[geerair]

Supreme court (SCOTUS) reviews laws and determines if they are in line with the INTENT of the founders view of govt.

Now read that last sentence again: SCOTUS is charged with determining if a law enacted by any other branch of govt lines up with the INTENTIONS the founding fathers laid down. Note this is NOT a floating or growing interpretation, this is what the founders intended.

This this is actually a judicial viewpoint called originalism and not a constitutional requirement or statute. Had the purpose been to enshrine the intent of the F.F.s forever, then the constitution would not have a process for amending its provisions. The fact that there have been 27 amendments to the constitution clearly supports this.

:

[k-fridge]

mi·li·tia (m-lsh)n.1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia

[jpsmith1cm]

You are in fact correct that the majority opinion defines well regulated in the manner you stated. I retract my intepretation and apologize for my error.

It is not majority opinion, but grammatical construction of the day in which the document was written. This isn't opinion, but fact.

That being said, the pertinent issue here that has been the major point of discussion is the regulation of firearms.

I quote from thr same case you cited. Justice Scalia: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Scalia continues "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the psssession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laes forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buikdings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms."

This is also not up for debate. Many rights are conditioned on behavior. Drug offenses preclude someone from exercising many of their rights.


So in fact we see that in the case, the majority opinion clearly states that regulation of firearms is permitted and passes constitutional muster.

I'm not questioning the realistic regulation of firearms. What I do question is the efficacy of MORE laws than we already have.

The AWB '94-04 did exactly NOTHING to prevent crime.


At the risk of being labeled a conspiracy nut, I'd offer the opinion that the existing gun laws are intentionally NOT enforced by a certain, small group of people who wish to see more laws in place.

[jpsmith1cm]

mi·li·tia (m-lsh)n.1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

This is actually codified.

The National Guard is the "Organized" milita.

The armed citizenry is the "unorganized" militia.

[ga-hvac-tech]

In reverse.

The USA is not unique in modern times, even to the point that it is fact a follower, modern doctrine could be said to have started with the Magna Carta, How ever i can agree that the fore fathers were able to write a document on a blank piece of paper without limitations of history. Other countries freedom had to evolve of time. ( fighting conservatism through out time).

There are many wise words written, but is still open to interpretation and change, for me this is very clearly written. They were smart enough to know, that all that was written would not suit for all time. The intention is the constitution would evolve to meet the times. You have to be liberal thinker to look forward, as the past has gone and can not be changed. ( I use the word liberal differently to how you see left wingers)

All balanced govt should have checks and accountability.

I do get the impression that your pres, is sometime seen a king (both sides), as all blame is placed on his head alone. maybe or not, it is good to be able to point a finger at singular entity.

This is where I believe you do not understand the intention of the founders: They understood the need for government... that a country and people need to be governed... Yet they also understood all to well that govt produced corrupt power. The intent of the founders was to lay a foundation by which govt would be difficult to corrupt... and the citizens could disband the govt and form a new one if it got too bad.

Note in the Declaration of Independence we have the right to dissolve govt and form a new one... then in the 2st amendment we are free to speech... and in the 2nd amendment we are free and guaranteed to keep and bear arms to 'preserve a free state'.

Now others may be smoother public speakers than I... however this does not seem like a thought process that 'changes with time'.

I personally do NOT believe the founders intended for the basic intentions of their documents and country to be modified to suite the whims of folks at will.

One really needs to be an American to understand this... something about freedom one just has to experience to appreciate.

[jpsmith1cm]

There are many wise words written, but is still open to interpretation and change, for me this is very clearly written. They were smart enough to know, that all that was written would not suit for all time. The intention is the constitution would evolve to meet the times. You have to be liberal thinker to look forward, as the past has gone and can not be changed. ( I use the word liberal differently to how you see left wingers)

The founders of this country were wise.

Wise enough to install a mechanism for accommodating societal change.

This is the process of constitutional amendments.

Of necessity, this is not a simple process, as the potential for radical change of our government is very serious and must not be undertaken lightly.

[barbar]

The founders of this country were wise.

Wise enough to install a mechanism for accommodating societal change.

This is the process of constitutional amendments.

Of necessity, this is not a simple process, as the potential for radical change of our government is very serious and must not be undertaken lightly.

And that is how I read it. We can play on words, but basically amendments is simply another word for change.

[k-fridge]

And that is how I read it. We can play on words, but basically amendments is simply another word for change.

Yes, but it is difficult change by design. The founders intentionally made it hard to meddle with the constitution. Perhaps though, not hard enough. Some of the amendments have not been good; some even quite problematic and possibly to blame for many of the problems the US faces today.

[barbar]

This is where I believe you do not understand the intention of the founders: They understood the need for government... that a country and people need to be governed... Yet they also understood all to well that govt produced corrupt power. The intent of the founders was to lay a foundation by which govt would be difficult to corrupt... and the citizens could disband the govt and form a new one if it got too bad.

Note in the Declaration of Independence we have the right to dissolve govt and form a new one... then in the 2st amendment we are free to speech... and in the 2nd amendment we are free and guaranteed to keep and bear arms to 'preserve a free state'.

Now others may be smoother public speakers than I... however this does not seem like a thought process that 'changes with time'.

I personally do NOT believe the founders intended for the basic intentions of their documents and country to be modified to suite the whims of folks at will.

One really needs to be an American to understand this... something about freedom one just has to experience to appreciate.

You and I have only have influence maybe today and more possibly tomorrow, We can learn from the past, and what we can say for certain based upon the past in that change is inevitable in the future. We therefore must allow societal governance to evolve to meet the changing times.

With freedom comes responsibility, not just from ourselves, but to those around us.

You do not need a declaration to over throw a government. Have you not just had an election, where the masses had the choice the do such a thing, and there choice was not!

You seem to be under the impression, that freedom is something that only Americans enjoy, when in fact much of the western world has greater freedoms, which have been gained over a number of years (not in a single swipe). The only freedom that I can see, that I do not have and you do, is the right to have a nuclear weapon.

I would say today the biggest difference between you and I is That "I have to freedom to have political influence", and you do not. Money has the political influence in your case. I make no separation between the so called left and right.