Printable View
Now then , doesn't that say that it is badly written Red .Quote:
The part that took my main interest.
Yep , but you cannot , so isn't it worthless .Quote:
Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.
BTW rabbit , doesn't that also mean that it is disputed ~;)
Not at all. What it means is that the drafters of the constitution were a bunch of smart individuals that crafted a document that can be changed over time based upon the desires of the people. They left many passages open to interpations and adjustments. The 2nd Amendment happens to be one of the more clever aspects of using language to carry several different possible meanings, allowing the government to have some flexibility in how it handles any given area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
If one does not like the wording of the constitution all one had to do is be a citizen of the United States and begin the constitutional processes to bring about the change that the majority of the people want.
Your a clever guy - but it seems your stuck on attempting to prove that the sentence was poorly written. It seems to me that the founding fathers of the United States were far more clever.
Arguing about a Constitution that has been written 2 centuries ago is almost as pointless as arguing about the Bible or the Quran.
The way Americans regard their outdated constitution as a modern Bible is kinda fascinating for me.
I mean, come on, when the founding fathers wrote that, people obviously had reasons to fear for their freedom, and popular militias were probably the best way to avoid a tyrannical system of government.
It is simply not the case anymore. If for some reason an oppressive government sizes the power, people will riot, whether they have guns or not.
Funny fact is that most conservatives here keep claiming they protect their freedom while their beloved government trample this freedom.
As for the "guns lower crime rate" argument, I don't think I have the knowledge to argue about that (and crime rate is something that can easily be modified depending on someone's agenda). I just think that when everyone wants to have its own gun, it means that the society is quite screwed up.
Well, Meneldil, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I would argue that an oppressive government has seized power in our country, and yours as well for that matter. You may look at the Constitution as antiquated and outdated, but I think that without it, judges and lawmakers simply make up the rules as they go (something they're prone to doing anyways, the Constitution just slows them down). If you're fine with each new election bringing in a fresh regime, each with their own dreams and desires how to oppress you, good for you. I'd argue that you're in a good place for that. Personally, I like having a contract in place, even if those in charge don't follow it all that well.
Edit: Sorry, Menldil. Was typing to fast and misspelled your name.
Then we in the United States should fold up our executive branch, our legislative process and our court system because its all based upon the United States Constitution? In otherwords are you demonstrating a lack of knowledge about how the United States government was established and the way in which it must work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Frankly I thank the founding fathers for writing a document that forces the people and the government to discuss issues before the government can just inact them. And if the Legislative branch does go against the people our systems allows the people to ask the executive branch to veto the new legislation. And if that fails we the people have one other branch to appeal to for recourse. So not such an outdated piece of writing now is it?
Its the basis of the government - not the same as the bible which is only a base for religion. The Constitution is the foundation of the government. Without it - the government can not exist in its current form. The French have had how many revolutions and changes to their form of government in the same time frame?Quote:
The way Americans regard their outdated constitution as a modern Bible is kinda fascinating for me.
Hince it must be discussed and go through the constitutional amendment process to be changed. Here you are discussing an idea, but you seemly refuse to allow the process to work as the document which established the government states that the government must act. The writers of the constitution were far more enlightened on the subject of government then many in the world today. The document allows for change, but it does not allow for blind change without the consent of the people. Your fact however is slightly misleading - the beloved government just had to answer to the people for its actions.Quote:
I mean, come on, when the founding fathers wrote that, people obviously had reasons to fear for their freedom, and popular militias were probably the best way to avoid a tyrannical system of government.
It is simply not the case anymore. If for some reason an oppressive government sizes the power, people will riot, whether they have guns or not.
Funny fact is that most conservatives here keep claiming they protect their freedom while their beloved government trample this freedom.
Emotional appeal arguements rarely work concerning the constitutional amendment process.Quote:
As for the "guns lower crime rate" argument, I don't think I have the knowledge to argue about that (and crime rate is something that can easily be modified depending on someone's agenda). I just think that when everyone wants to have its own gun, it means that the society is quite screwed up.
My 5 cents on gun control. I think people should have the right to own guns if they want or need them. My point is that all the fire arms purchased should be registered by law enforcement to keep track of them. I dont see anything bad that people have shotguns,hunting rifles and hand guns but we should be aware where the guns are and authorities should be able to check if necessary that the guns are kept in safe places so they dont create unnecessary risks.
Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
What i dont understand is why civilians should be able to posses military weapons like full automatic assault rifles,machine guns,mortars or anything like that. There is not anykind of good explanation why civilians should have acces on military hardware.
In case the government becomes oppressive and you have to fight the military.Quote:
What i dont understand is why civilians should be able to posses military weapons like full automatic assault rifles,machine guns,mortars or anything like that. There is not anykind of good explanation why civilians should have acces on military hardware.
Crazed Rabbit
Well dont you live in a democracy? Arent the military personel citizens also? Do you think they would turn their weapons against their own people? It seems you have little trust towards your political system Rabbit.:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I'm not at all sure that CR was implying that (not to put words in Rabbit's mouth, this is my own interpretation of what has been written).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
As we know from history, the institution of democracy, even supported by a constitution, is not immune from installing a government antithetical to it. What the people vote for is not always what they get.
Since militaries are beholden by oath to the government (even if the wording of the oath actually says something different, in practice this is how it works) it is possible to envisage a scenario whereby the government of the day uses the military to impose an unconstitutional solution (say a state of emergency, that evolves from temporary to permanent) which is no longer supported the people. If that government then foregoes the democratic process by suspending elections (for the sake of "security", for example) the people may come into conflict with said government and the military acting to impose the government's will. Whereas some officers and soldiers may baulk at this unconstitutional government, most will not - again, history proves that following orders tends to be the default.
What choice do the people then have, save armed insurrection? The founding fathers, schooled in exactly this rebellion against established yet tyrannical government, would have been remiss not to have made a provision in their constitution to facilitate such an insurrection.
They no doubt believed it was much more of a possibility than we do today, because of the proximity of their history.
I don't go so far as to claim they wanted the government to fear their people, but to maintain a very healthy respect for them. If I may paraphrase awfully, you get more respect with a kind word and a gun, than you do with just a kind word.
But Banguo. The level of equipment which you would need to make the army any kind of real threat is out of the reach of citizens anyway. With only infantry fire arms you wont get far.So should the people be able to purchase RPG´s,MBT´s,AFV´s,Artillery and fighters/bombers also?
Well, I think I should be allowed to own RPGs and a launcher. But that's mostly so I can take out cars with overly loud sub-woofers that drive by my house at 3 in the morning and wake me up. I'm pretty sure that's not Constitutionally protected, though. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I think that few anti- vehicle mines should do that. That way you wouldnt have to aim while half sleep,it could turn out disastrous to your neighbours.Also you can pick the ones from the road that havent detonated over night the same time you pick the morning mail. Maybe a SAM battery would be apropriate too? The bloody planes make awfull noice when they fly over your house in the middle of the night.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Saying that a 200 year old constitution is an outdated document is not the same as saying you should have no constitution at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
why not write up a new constitution that makes sense for the time and age we live in?
My country has a constitution that is just 32 years old.....the people voted...and their representatives wrote it out, and it has been updated regularly....this process was not problematic..... so I don´t see why the US government can´t do this...instead of fighting over a document so old and outdated that nobody can come to an agreement on what it actually means anymore.
Don't have much of a plane noise problem; but the traffic report helicopter over the freeway half a mile away deserves a good SAM or two when it comes down this side of the freeway at 6 AM. :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Look at Iraq - the most powerful military in the world is being knocked about by insurgents with little more than stone knives and bearskins. If people do not consent to be governed, they can make themselves ungovernable with just sticks and stones. My own country of Ireland fought against the then most powerful nation in the world for a very long time, and though one can argue we were still "governed" it made for some very unhappy British governors.
One may argue that a totalitarian government as posited would deploy the kind of barbarism advocated by certain posters for the Iraq occupation. History again tells us that this may lead to temporary success, but motivates the oppressed to fight harder and nastier themselves. The kind of brutal measures necessary to govern an insurrection eventually sap the spirit of those that do the dirty work. The military that once followed orders because it seemed legitimate begins to question. A people that desire to be free will eventually win that freedom.
I think the argument from the Second Amendment is that if the citizenry are fore-armed, this sequence of events is much less likely to happen because a potentially undemocratic government knows the bar for suppression is that much higher.
As for the capacity of weaponry that should be available, in the context of the argument being made for the Second Amendment (where there are more scholarly voices than mine) but I can see both the reasoning that would allow citizens to be unhampered in their choice of weaponry, and the argument that maintains that simple gun ownership is enough to have citizenry armed "enough" to ensure government respect.
My own view is that the latter position should be enough, if one accepts the intent of the Second to be government respect.
Personally, I would not like to see a "Second Amendment" type position in my own country's constitution as I think uncontrolled gun ownership (relatively speaking) contributes more problems than it solves. However, as Redleg and others have eloquently noted, in the USA, they do have such an Amendment and if people want to change the effect and meaning of it (and I tend to agree that it is rather clear) they should instigate constitutional change, not seek to shackle it through case law.
But my opinion remains irrelevant, as I am not a citizen of that great country.
What like the process that led to the EU constitution? ~:eek: Care to reflect on what any of the language in that most modern of documents actually meant? Constitutions, modern or archaic, are always subject to interpretation and argument - that's why we have a judiciary. The moment you write an idea down, it becomes "outdated" (which is one of the more compelling arguments for the British unwritten constitution). Or perhaps you are a fan of constitutional government by blogosphere? :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
The US Constitution is still one of the finest documents ever written by Mankind in its simplicity, language and aspiration. It codifies Enlightenment thought, at the time when that thought was in its finest hour. It has informed most of the documents and treaties since that deal with human rights, dignity and representation.
The Magna Carta of the United Kingdom is a similar document. These are of their time and yet timeless.
And the Constitution of the United States can be and has been amended to reflect new realities. But the old truths remain self-evident.
Very eloquently put! Well done. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
the EU constitution is no example of how to write a constitution because it is no far removed from the general public and tries to mesh together the interests of diferent countries that it became an unreadable mess....Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
but there are examples out there of constitutional documents that are reasonably clear and easy to read....that was the kind of document I was refering to.....as an example I presented the Portuguese constitution that I always found to be a pretty clear document....
English version of the Portuguese constitution
this kind of document doesn´t cause the debate we see over the US constitution for example....questions put to the Portuguese Constitutional Court are normally concerning extremelly minute tecnical situations....nothing related to the individual citizen rights or anything of the sort.
so is the bible....but I wouldn´t rule my life by any of those documents....in the end they are museum pieces...Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
so self-evident that there is constantly debates as to what the document actually means....:oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Ronin, I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
I believe constitutional argument and debate to be a good thing, and I am certainly a traditionalist. I would therefore argue that the Portuguese constitution you linked to owes its body and soul to the US Constitution in form and aspiration.
As for clarity, what happens when, for example, the country tries to implement Article 7.2? What does it mean by 'all forms of aggression'? How does that operate with Article 7.4 if a Portuguese speaking nation performs an act of aggression? Article 7.7 - may accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court? Under which circumstances may it not?
Do you see how just these few items may need to be debated and interpreted on a case by case basis?
There are also provisions there which guarantee what many people would describe as Euro-socialist political policy. Does that mean a right-wing government that doesn't believe in a welfare state is by definition unconstitutional?
Not saying it's a bad constitution at all - bit long, but robust. I just think it is not as free from discussion and debate as to its intended meanings as you observe.
:smile:
Well sayed Banguo.:bow: But if we use Iraq as example,we come up with a problem. I completely agree that any government cant govern their citizens without the acceptance of the citizens forever. But when it comes down to Iraq situation, there we can see soldiers of democratic government who are trying to fight against the rebels and insurgents bound by their rules. A totalitarian government wouldnt have the problems that the US troops are facing since they could mass murder the whole population if they felt the need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Im not trying to change US legistlation,but im talking from my own perspective. But to me a principle that the citizens should be able to access military hardware just be sure could cause lot more problems then benefits. If the Citizens would have free acces to military hardware, also the less law abidinging and potentially dangerous groups inside the nation would have that same ability too. For example a group which would be out to replace the lawfull democratic government of the sayed country and replace it with a totalitarian one.
I think if the people of united states would really like to show a threat towards a possible totalitarian regimee in their country they should have atleast mandatory military service for their male population. That is one of the reasons that make conscription a good choice in a civilized democratic republic. The Citizen army will not bow down to any dictators. and my firm belief is that a military trained man armed with for example hunting rifle could be lot more dangerous opponent then civilian fighting with AK-47.
Banquo's Ghost stated the postion I have concerning the dating of the Constitution. Well written sir.
Debate is the cornerstone of a healthly democracy. If one can not debate - how can one develope an informed opinion on the subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
The debate around the 2nd Amendment has shown that certain types of legislation is allowed under the amendment while others types are not. Without debate their is no democracy - only tyranny of the government.
debate is great...and necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
but it´s one thing if you have a clear law...that everybody knows the meaning off...and then everyone can debate if the law is correct or not...and if the law should be changed or not...
it´s a completelly different situation if the wording of the law is so vague that nobody can figure out what it means...then you have to debate just to try and figure out what the hell the law means.....
if the law was written correctly you´d just have the first type of debate.....instead of wasting time with the second.
The constitution constantly is debated and has constant change done. Last amendment was 1992. The constitution has a two fold purpose, one to set the boundries of the government on what it can do and not do, and one to establish the procedures for what types of laws the government can pass. The second amendment is not a law but a setting of a right. Rights of the peopel can be adjusted by the constitutional process not the legislative process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
The 2nd amendment is clear in its intent. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. The part that is cloudly is what exactly does the Well regulated militia mean. The drafters of the constitution were a clever bunch of men of the enlightenment. One thing that they did know is that the government could not protect the people from every possible source of danger of their time. So the drafters determined that the best possible course was to insure the safety of the Free State that militia would be necessary, that because it was a new government with very limited resources that those called up would have to come armed with what they processed in order to defend their homes and their nation. The line of a well regulated militia allows the government to draft laws concerning the militia. Gun control that regulates what types of weapons the people can own fall within that scope of the amendment (in my opinion) to deny weapons in the hands of the people violates the admendment.Quote:
it´s a completelly different situation if the wording of the law is so vague that nobody can figure out what it means...then you have to debate just to try and figure out what the hell the law means.....
Times have changed but the orginal intent of the drafters was to arm the population. Most serious studies of the constitution agree on that point. What the founding fathers did do with the initial part of the second amendment was to create an amendment that could be subject to change in the future and even legislative action without having to do an amendment process. The two part sentence was done on purpose to get 13 independent colonies to come together to form a union. It was worded in such a way that the Federalists could regulate what militias were to consist of.Quote:
if the law was written correctly you´d just have the first type of debate.....instead of wasting time with the second.
Where you believe the second part is a waste of time, I believe it is a cornerstone of a democracy and prevents bad law from being past. I rather discuss the issue first - versus discuss after the fact wether the law is a good one or bad. Because without debate - laws such as the patriot act get passed. Hopefully the congress will allow it to expire in the time frame stipulated in the law - but once the government removes a right from the people it is very hard to get it back.
Now is that an example of really good debate or really bad debate ?Quote:
The constitution constantly is debated and has constant change done. Last amendment was 1992.
After all it was proposed in 1789 so it is only 203 years they took to ratify it
Incorrect and I strongly subsect that you know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The constitution was ratified back in 1787, went into effect in 1789. The last amendment was an adjustment made to the consitution in 1992, which is exactly in line with the process outlined in the document itself.
The amendment process shows that those who argue that it is an outdated document have no understanding of the document itself, nor the process that it advocates.
Is your problem Tribesman with the constitution a lack of understanding or the lack of wanting the people to decide the course of their government through debating the base document and what the scope of their government should be?
The constitution allows the people to be activitily involved in their government through debate of what the document means and how it should be applied. Not many nations can make that claim.
What I wrote is entirely correct .Quote:
Incorrect and I strongly subsect that you know that.
Don't you know that .
Read again exactly what was written and exactly what was quoted .:book:
If you still wish to dispute what was written then I shall put it another way .
If you are not happy that it was 203 years , would you be happier if I was more precise and said it was 74,003 days .
It appears your problem is that you didn't read what was written , and instead read what you thought was written:yes:Quote:
Is your problem Tribesman with the constitution a lack of understanding or the lack of wanting the people to decide the course of their government through debating the base document and what the scope of their government should be?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :thumbsdown:
Linky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-...s_Constitution
Since he won't do it...
You might want to ask yourself that question, given your deliberate attempt at being obtruse, since you know full well I was speaking of the constitution as a whole, not just one specific amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
[strike]Resorting to name calling is beneath the level of discussion.[/strike]
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
You might want to ask yourself that question, given your deliberate attempt at being obtruse, since you know full well I was speaking of the constitution as a whole, not just one specific amendment, given that your last two comments were attempts at trolling and this last response confirms that you have resorted to only trolling.
Resorting to name calling is beneath the level of discussion.
ALL the information was in the post Red , it says exactly what it says , so don't go getting upset because you didn't read it properly and went off on one instead.:thumbsdown: