Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 146
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: The US constitution

  1. #61
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,475
    Thanks
    36036

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Why hasn't the constitution been updated to keep up with social evolution?
    Because it's so difficult to change. We count on court interpretations for this. Think public executions for property crimes were considered "cruel and unusual" in 1783?
    Thanks from labrea

  2. #62
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,475
    Thanks
    36036

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    Something like the constitution had never been done before. There were either dictatorships or monarchies.
    But even monarchies were severely limited by the unwritten British constitution. The last time a British monarch attempted to openly defy Parliament was 1714--long before our revolution.

    Where can you find a non-monarchical dictatorship before 1776?

  3. #63
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    33,727
    Thanks
    26556

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    Without the second amendment...you could not defend your home, life and property. I like the fact that evil idiots have to wonder IF I am armed, rather than know I am not.
    And yet, millions of Americans do.

    Gandhi and Martin Luther King didnt need guns when they led their revolutions against government tyranny.

    Neither did Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
    Thanks from BigBob

  4. #64
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    33,727
    Thanks
    26556

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Otto Throttle View Post
    "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" does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms to only those in a well regulated milita. In the parallel statement "a well schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" does not mean only those attending school, or those already well schooled have the right to own books. It merely highlights the importance of the right to own books in furtherance of a well schooled population. Also the statement does't explicitly limit reading materials to only books of paper and leather. Nothing in it implies that Ebooks and the internet should not also be allowed.



    Your interpretation of Cruikshank is likewise misguided; yes, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, nor dependent on the Constitution, but is recognized as preexisting the Constitution. But no, the second amendment doesn't grant the right to "keep and bear arms" to the government but rather limits the government from infringing on that "right of the people."

    And your interpretation of Miller also misses the point that while the government can limit the right to own a short barreled shotgun by requiring a tax stamp on it, it is only because such a weapon is not deemed to be the sort of weapon that might be required by a militia, while on the other hand an AR-15 for instance would be precisely such a weapon.

    And the Heller decision simply reaffirmed what has always been the standard interpretation of the second amendment that "the people" actually does mean the people, individually.

    Please stop trying to reinterpret that which you clearly don't understand and I'll refrain from explaining cricket to you. Thanks.
    Only took two and a quarter centuries, and was decided by a divided court, 5 to 4.

  5. #65
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    33,727
    Thanks
    26556

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    And your simpleton interpretation is nonsensical in regards to the intention of the 2nd amendment.

    Unless you contest that it's not about protecting the citizens against a tyrannical state? They just wanted militia's and armed citizens for fun?
    How did that work out historically?

    Shays' Rebellion
    Whiskey Rebellion
    Fries's Rebellion
    Anti-Rent War
    Taos Revolt
    American Civil War
    Thanks from BigBob

  6. #66
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    60,899
    Thanks
    30145

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    Something like the constitution had never been done before. There were either dictatorships or monarchies.
    The way Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote The Federalist Papers, though, it appears that many things done in the Constitution had been done before, in some form or another. That is how they got the ideas in the first place. Not everything, of course; obviously there was a great deal of innovation. But neither did it simply spring out of the ground as something containing ideas no one had every heard of before.
    Thanks from labrea

  7. #67
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    60,899
    Thanks
    30145

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    Regulated meant to be in a state of preparedness, to be ready to fight. That makes much more sense than what you are saying.
    That does not make a whole lot of sense. The two words are not related to each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    Think about it. If the second amendment was written to protect citizens against the tyranny of the state, why in the ever loving fuck would they give the state the power to "regulate" them, so well? Lol, Jesus use your critical thinking skills.
    The regulatory power would belong to the states, not the federal government, which is where the prohibition applied.

  8. #68
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    60,899
    Thanks
    30145

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Because it's so difficult to change. We count on court interpretations for this.
    Actually, the amendment process was made purposefully difficult. We cannot amend the Constitution via judicial interpretation, but that interpretation can change our understanding of what the existing Constitution means, once a dispute is brought before it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Think public executions for property crimes were considered "cruel and unusual" in 1783?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth...al_punishments

  9. #69
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    2,889
    Thanks
    616

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Impossible.

    You probably find that the massacres committed are not by felons. All you can do is take a certain type/range of guns out of the system and as time passes coupled with amnesty hand in days, there will be less and less in the system.

    If someone wants to be a criminal, there's no stopping them. That is not the focus. It's trying to stop law abiding citizens murdering one another with guns

    Reducing crime is handled by length of prison terms and rehabilitation programmes. Different focus.
    So here's a novel idea: how about decent security at schools? And that should include guess what- guns in the hands of trained and willing teachers and administrators in addition to the armed but worthless "resource officer". If crazy people know they're likely to meet resistance at any given school and that they'll have to pass through some secure choke point under the scrutiny of security to get in they'll probably stop trying to shoot up schools.
    And as long as well meaning but thoroughly misguided people who advocate limiting the ability of regular folk to defend themselves, as long as those people are unsuccessful at limiting our rights, there won't be many soft, enticing, undefended "gun free" targets for crazy people to attack. And meanwhile the criminals who you acknowledge will always have guns will continue to prey mostly on each other, committing crimes against possibly armed citizens at the risk of getting shot.

  10. #70
    New Member BigBob's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    255

    From
    My house
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    Without the second amendment...you could not defend your home, life and property. I like the fact that evil idiots have to wonder IF I am armed, rather than know I am not.
    Why would I care if you have a gun? First you need to see me and realize your mistake. I fear no gun or rifle.
    and then again I don't live near you so my neighbor hood is not low lifes on the roam.

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Where in the Constitution??
    By Wrangler in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 23rd May 2016, 02:47 PM
  2. The US Needs A New Constitution
    By TrueMan in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th September 2014, 06:51 AM
  3. Replies: 400
    Last Post: 27th March 2013, 06:02 PM
  4. what does the Constitution say?
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10th November 2009, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed