[News] The Trayvon Martin Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Not to mention that of all first world countries, the US has seen the biggest shift to a more 'oppressive/repressive' style of government and the proliferation of guns has not stopped that from happening.
GasBandit
Staff member
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't see how you can interpret it in any other way without intellectual dishonesty stemming from an overall disagreement with the amendment as a whole.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, that's exactly what the founders thought when they put in that amendment because they had just finished fighting a bloody, brutal revolution to free themselves from an oppressive government.
People much smarter than I am have argued this ad nauseum, however I can see both you are coming from and they are coming from.
Just like the first amendment is pretty clear, you can still be arrested for yelling fire in a theatre.
Just like the fourth amendment is pretty clear, yet warrantless wiretapping is common.
Just like everyone ignores the 10th amendment.
Just because it's written in non-legalese, doesn't mean it's not going to be lawyered to death.
GasBandit
Staff member
Or, good thing we don't need to learn from the past when its lessons no longer make us feel warm and fuzzy.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm just making sure I'm following this right... are you saying that the constitution and/or its amendments can be discarded because lawyers help politicians perform illegal acts upon an oblivious populace?
As for the first one, nobody would argue that the founders intended you to have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. "Freedom of Speech" is about political persecution. In fact, I think it could be argued that shouting fire in a crowded theater (that is not on fire) could be construed as fraud.
Speaking solely for myself, I'm going to have to go with "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." If I felt that we'd been provided with incontrovertible evidence that Zimmerman did commit murder, vs. just that he did kill Martin, then I'd probably feel differently; but we weren't.
No, I'm saying that the founders weren't smart enough to consider every permutation of every interpretation of their original writing. And so the government, as a nebulous and faceless organism, constructed from the people you vote for, will attempt to mold a popular interpretation to satiate its desire for, lacking a better term, growth. You're sold an interpretation just as much as the anti-gun lobby is sold their interpretation; neither is correct or incorrect, it just feeds the beast broccoli or cauliflower.
If you're arguing that we can take the human brain out of the equation and simply rely on a piece of paper to enumerate what is and isn't 'correct' in the context of a society that doesn't remain constant, I will point you in the direction of a similar manuscript that emphatically upholds a doctrine of 'correct' and 'incorrect', written 2000 years earlier, and suffers from the same permutative interpretation - with exactly the same results.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's actually not what "regulated" meant in the 18th century. Think back to the word "regular" or "regulation" in terms of 18th century military. For a fighting unit to be "regular" or "well-regulated" it means it must be equipped up to the standard required for infantry. Properly maintained. In good working order. IE - a "well regulated militia" is not one that is kept on a tight leash by government, it is one equipped to fight just as well as any standing regular army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Furthermore, the verbiage of the line says "being (the militia) is necessary to preserve freedom, the right shall not be infringed). It's common throughout both the constitution and other documents of the time. Basically it says "Since without a well equipped militia liberty goes to hell, people can keep and bear arms and the government has no say to the contrary." This is expounding the motivation behind the amendment, not placing limitations upon it.
And just to drive the nail home a little further, "militia" also basically referred to every single citizen of the united states. Not some formal group you signed up for.
GasBandit
Staff member
There's a process already in place to revise or repeal parts of the constitution. Until the 2nd Amendment goes through that process, all else is chicanery that only persists due to the indolence and apathy of the people upon which it is inflicted.
Yep.
GasBandit
Staff member
I hate it when that happens.
No agreeing on MY internet, mister.
S
Soliloquy
I'm actually curious about something... was openly carrying a loaded firearm through the city streets commonplace and/or readily accepted in the 1790s in large cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Boston? Does anyone know how to find that kind of thing out?
Yes, but it will require getting up to 88MPH.
S
Soliloquy
Dang it, the speed limits here only go up to 70.
(Seriously though, are there any kinds of historical records that might point to that kind of thing that anyone's aware of?)
fade
Staff member
Yes, yes, I've heard this argument about regulated before. However, the word was also used in its current sense pretty much as far back as you can trace it as well. Even with a metaphorical interpretation, one could easily argue that the regular military is quite well regulated in the traditional sense, too. In fact, it's one of the hallmarks of the military. And if the implication is that we should be up to the operation of the regular army, can that not circle back around to the other definition?
I also don't think implying that it's everyone's civic duty really "drives the nail home". I could just as easily say that makes my point as well, since I don't think we've ever had militia action with an anarchic army.
I also don't think implying that it's everyone's civic duty really "drives the nail home". I could just as easily say that makes my point as well, since I don't think we've ever had militia action with an anarchic army.
S
Soliloquy
Well, besides in the Revolutionary war, you mean
GasBandit
Staff member
It has nothing to do with civic duty and everything to do with dispelling the notion that the 2nd amendment is about allowing guns ONLY for a strictly controlled organized paramilitary organization that is held on a short leash and with substandard weaponry. Having just come out of a revolution and still smarting from the yoke of oppression being yanked off through the blood shed from and by men as young as 14, the intent of the founders is clear as crystal - the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or home defense (as I've said often and loudly). Rather it has to do with keeping the government hesitant to oppress an armed populace that could conceivably overthrow them by force. The founders wanted any american with the means and inclination to be able to equip himself to be as deadly as any soldier, and wanted the federal government to have absolutely no way to prevent him from becoming so.
M
makare
I'm not much for original intentionism but if you look at today's gun culture and try to say that is what the framers intended all I can say is "lol wut?"
I want to say something against that, because I know a lot of responsible gun owners who aren't like that.
But I also know or have seen enough "gun nuts" that do adhere to the stereotypes more closely than I'd like to admit, so in all honesty, I can't. I think some people take it to a ridiculous level. But some people take EVERYTHING to a ridiculous level.
I believe that the intention was that the people have the right to be armed, to have the means to protect themselves from an oppressive government. And Soliloquoy, people did carry loaded pistols commonly in cities until probably near the 20th century. The sheer number of "pocket pistols" sold by Colt and other gun companies in the 19th century attest to that, and there were no shortage of flintlock pistols for gentleman's personal defense in the 18th as well - much smaller than military "horse" pistols or naval pistols, and not as refined as dueling weapons.
But I also know or have seen enough "gun nuts" that do adhere to the stereotypes more closely than I'd like to admit, so in all honesty, I can't. I think some people take it to a ridiculous level. But some people take EVERYTHING to a ridiculous level.
I believe that the intention was that the people have the right to be armed, to have the means to protect themselves from an oppressive government. And Soliloquoy, people did carry loaded pistols commonly in cities until probably near the 20th century. The sheer number of "pocket pistols" sold by Colt and other gun companies in the 19th century attest to that, and there were no shortage of flintlock pistols for gentleman's personal defense in the 18th as well - much smaller than military "horse" pistols or naval pistols, and not as refined as dueling weapons.
I think that's a good point too, though. Pistols were designed to stop an aggressor. Now they are designed with extended clips and the ability to blow a hole through body armor. There is something wrong with this.
Yes, body armor should have kept pace with technology!
Going back to the audio analysis. Once evidence is digitally altered, it loses its value as evidence in a court of law.
Also "a young man screaming" should fit Zimmerman too. He is twenty five years old after all.
Also "a young man screaming" should fit Zimmerman too. He is twenty five years old after all.
M
makare
Whenever this guy in my class brings up the we should all have the right to guns argument I always think of http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ do you want them to have guns? Really.
Or Snooki... should Snooki have a gun? Yikes.
Or Snooki... should Snooki have a gun? Yikes.
S
SeraRelm
Maybe if we had guns, they wouldn't exist...
If pistols couldn't shoot through body armor, then wouldn't that mean if your attacker wore body armor, you couldn't stop him? And only some pistols can - the Five-seveN being the only one that immediately comes to mind that was expressly designed to penetrate a ballistic vest.
And who wears body armor? C'mon people follow my line of thinking here.