17 More Dead Kids

[Devastatin Dave]

“Shall not be infringed”. Go “Find” Youselves.

[Husar]

“Shall not be infringed”. Go “Find” Youselves.

"well-regulated militia" found yourself!

Btw, can't you remove or change the second amendment? Most countries can alter the constitution with 2/3rd of the vote in parliament or so. With 80% of the people wanting stricter controls, an actually representative congress should have the votes. Germany passed universal marriage in a similar fashion last year. Of course that necessitates that the USA are actually a democracy and not an oligarchy.

[ConjurerDragon]

"well-regulated militia" found yourself!

Btw, can't you remove or change the second amendment? Most countries can alter the constitution with 2/3rd of the vote in parliament or so. With 80% of the people wanting stricter controls, an actually representative congress should have the votes. Germany passed universal marriage in a similar fashion last year. Of course that necessitates that the USA are actually a democracy and not an oligarchy.

Germany did not do it that way and I find that problematic.

The right to "universal" marriage has been created by a simple federal law of the Bundestag
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/ehefueralle-129.html

The problem with that is that the german basic law/constitution was not changed.
The part of the basic law that the family has to receive special protection is only interpreted differently in the meaning that "family" is no longer just man+woman but a few other combinations (and by far not "universal" as everyone involved still have to be human, above a certain age, willing and not related too close to each other).

I find that problematic as at the creation of the basic law everyone only considered family to be the traditional one. At that time open male homosexuality was even prohibited by german law and quite a few men served jailtime for it which should emphasize the view of the time.

In the decades after the creation of the basic law the german high court has, several times, found that the family that has to be protected is the male+woman one that is supposed to be the smallest cell of the state, provide offspring and so on.

So - for a honest change, IMHO, a change of the basic law would have been necessary. That requires extensive and long discussions in the Bundestag because it needs a 2/3rd majority to pass such a change and would have needed votes of the opposition too. Something that would have shown that the whole of society would support such a change.

Instead a simple law was passed that needs only a simple majority and that shortly before elections so that it looks like a strategic ploy by Merkel to take some arguments of the opposition from them, that they could have used in the election campaign.

[Husar]

In essence if Americans are happy to have this many deaths, then so be it.

Is it not so that the 20% who are happy with it are forcing the other 80% who are not to swallow the status quo?

Germany did not do it that way and I find that problematic.

It did, I was referring to finding the votes to pass it. The CDU was mostly against it but they had a free vote and the SPD and opposition with a few CDU politicians passed the law IIRC. If they had tried to enforce strict party lines and the CDU had tried to force the SPD to vote with them, then the vote either hadn't happened in the first place or it had ended up a no.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "would have needed votes of the opposition too", it was mostly passed with votes of the opposition while the majority of the governing party, including Merkel herself, voted against the law: http://www.zeit.de/politik/2017-06/b...-ehe-fuer-alle

Whether it was a ploy by Merkel is not relevant for the outcome, everybody also knows she personally voted against it.

[ConjurerDragon]

...
It did, I was referring to finding the votes to pass it. The CDU was mostly against it but they had a free vote and the SPD and opposition with a few CDU politicians passed the law IIRC. If they had tried to enforce strict party lines and the CDU had tried to force the SPD to vote with them, then the vote either hadn't happened in the first place or it had ended up a no.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "would have needed votes of the opposition too", it was mostly passed with votes of the opposition while the majority of the governing party, including Merkel herself, voted against the law: http://www.zeit.de/politik/2017-06/b...-ehe-fuer-alle

The SIMPLE federal law was passed with 393 vs. 226 votes and so passed as a simple law only needs a simple majority (>50%). If they had attempted a change of the constitution they would have needed a 2/3rd majority and using the same numbers - failed.
That that is seen as a legal problem is explained e.g. here too:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/.../20003004.html

Whether it was a ploy by Merkel is not relevant for the outcome, everybody also knows she personally voted against it.

It is relevant as it was useful to take away a good argument from the opposition in time for the election.
Voting for it would have been political suicide as her own party, the CDU, has many conservative members that are in favour of a traditional family according to the christian values that the CDU (christian democratic union) once stood for.
So she played both - voting against the law to appeal to the conservative part of her own party and allowing all members of parliament to vote freely instead of giving out a way to vote for all members of the CDU to get the law passed and weaken the opposition that saw one of her key arguments for the election becoming a success for Merkel.

[Husar]

The SIMPLE federal law was passed with 393 vs. 226 votes and so passed as a simple law only needs a simple majority (>50%). If they had attempted a change of the constitution they would have needed a 2/3rd majority and using the same numbers - failed.
That that is seen as a legal problem is explained e.g. here too:

So what? I didn't want to derail the topic to a discussion about how solid some German law is because none of that is relevant to how US politicians can't even make a shaky law with partisan support when it comes to an issue like gun control where plenty of US citizens wish for such a change. IIRC the restrictions on gun ownership or stricter screening before a purchase do not require a constitutional change in the US given that they've had plenty of restrictions and controls before.

If DevDave and his interpretation were correct, then children should be able to buy guns at age 4...

As to changing the Constitution, there are two paths. The only one used thus far is by passing a further amendment. Such an amendment requires a joint resolution passed by 2/3 majority in both houses of the US Congress with said amendment then requiring ratification by 3/4 of the State legislatures of the respective states. This is how all of our amendments have thus far been promulgated.

The second choice is for 2/3 of the State legislatures to demand amendments or changes via the paneling of another Constitution convention. Such a convention could, with the historical precedent of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, not only consider and adopt amendments (the original mission of the Philadelphia convention was to improve the Articles of Confederation) but could propose an entirely new Constitution. Regardless, this would also have to be ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures.

Well, yes, that makes a change incredibly unlikely.Even if you could get the 2/3rds majorities, you'd probably fail with the 3/4th of states. But could a further amendment overwrite another amendment? I don't think so. Aren't there even people who say older amendments trump the newer ones?

Either way I can see how certain human values can be valid for centuries, but as far as technological gadgets, and that includes weapons, are concerned, setting a certain very generic law in stone seems like a bad idea. I get why it was done back then when technological changes were still relatively slow. But imagine in the late 1980s they had passed an amendment that said every computer with 100Mhz or more can only be owned by the military... The US would be a technological backwater country now (or have a VERY large commercial arm of the military )...
The technological difference between a musket and an AR-15 should be quite obvious. One can kill two people at 100m in less than five seconds, the other can't even be reloaded in five seconds and has more inaccuracy than accuracy at 100m.

It should be remembered that the 2nd amendment is part of the Constitution and is concerned with governmental powers and limitations thereunto. It is not about hunting or target shooting or even defending one's home or person.

Were that the reason for the right to keep and to bear arms, there would be little or no reason for assault weapons, 12+mm ammo, crew-served weapons, explosives or the like. Hunting and home defense are far better accomplished with a shotguns, or with rifles of less than 10mm bore. Even the effectiveness of handguns can be questioned, as a shotty is far less likely to miss, especially in semi-trained hands.

But the amendment is NOT about that, it is a check on the power of government.

For an outsider the last sentence seems laughable since the people collecting all the guns appear the least concerned about checking the power of a tyrannical government, and I largely consider the US an oligarchy by now anyway. I'm not questioning the good intentions of the amendment, I'm questioning the practical use of it today. It's not just about how much more powerful the government's weapons are today, it's about how easy it has become to manipulate these militia gun owners into supporting a more tyrannical approach and opposing the more democratic ones. The hardcore gun community has obviously been following fake news since at least the election of Obama and they still haven't realized it. If anything could have actually saved the US it would probably have been a decent education system. A fool with a gun is just an instrument of the tyrant in the information age.

It sounds harsh but it's actually quite sad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Well, yes, that makes a change incredibly unlikely.Even if you could get the 2/3rds majorities, you'd probably fail with the 3/4th of states. But could a further amendment overwrite another amendment? I don't think so. Aren't there even people who say older amendments trump the newer ones?

Purposefully difficult. They wanted it changeable, but not at a whim. We've adopted 27 amendments, 17 of those after the "Bill of Rights." One amendment specifically repealed a previous amendment, so it is possible to amend an amendment so to speak (since, having been ratified, the previous amendment is deemed part of the whole text, the whole text being amenable as per Article V of the Constitution). While some may try to assert that previous amendments "supersede" later amendments, the history of the Constitution and its amendments does not support this. Once amended, it is the amended text that embodies the mandate of the Constitution, not the preceding version.

Either way I can see how certain human values can be valid for centuries, but as far as technological gadgets, and that includes weapons, are concerned, setting a certain very generic law in stone seems like a bad idea. I get why it was done back then when technological changes were still relatively slow. But imagine in the late 1980s they had passed an amendment that said every computer with 100Mhz or more can only be owned by the military... The US would be a technological backwater country now (or have a VERY large commercial arm of the military )...
The technological difference between a musket and an AR-15 should be quite obvious. One can kill two people at 100m in less than five seconds, the other can't even be reloaded in five seconds and has more inaccuracy than accuracy at 100m.

It is not a law, but a mandated limitation on the Government's authority, something a government cannot do.

Had we found enough idiots in Congress and 3/4 of the legislatures to promulgate such an amendment we would have deserved the backwater status such a limitation would beget. That's why it is hard to change the Constitution; so that some damn foolish opinion of the moment is unlikely to be included as part of our governance. It does not always work (IMnsHO) as the 16th and 18th amendments indicate. We've only repealed the latter unfortunately.

As to the tech difference between a musket and an AR-15, you are correct in the practical day-to-day differences embodied. Almost all technologies of the 20th century and later represent orders of magnitude improvements in capability over those available in the latter 18th.

But the point is the amendment allowed private citizens to possess weaponry which, if used in concert by a group of like minded persons in a cause they felt strongly enough to take up arms over, COULD pose a credible counterbalance to the power and weaponry available to the central government. Then, that was the musket and the cannon. Now, it is the semi-automatic rifle, the grenade launcher, etc.

Your argument about the enhanced lethality of firearms today is based on the assumption of personal individual use. As I noted in the previous post, AR-15s for personal defense or hunting and the like ARE the wrong tools. They greatly increase the potential for some individual to harm more people through their misuse than would the weapons of Washington's era. In that you are correct and if the amendment were truly about personal weapons use for reasonable purposes then it would be obvious that firearm restrictions would be needful.

The second amendment is not, at its core, about an individual's misuse of such weaponry but about the viability of the citizenry cowing or defeating a government that has become oppressive through their concerted action.

For an outsider the last sentence seems laughable since the people collecting all the guns appear the least concerned about checking the power of a tyrannical government, and I largely consider the US an oligarchy by now anyway. I'm not questioning the good intentions of the amendment, I'm questioning the practical use of it today. It's not just about how much more powerful the government's weapons are today, it's about how easy it has become to manipulate these militia gun owners into supporting a more tyrannical approach and opposing the more democratic ones. The hardcore gun community has obviously been following fake news since at least the election of Obama and they still haven't realized it. If anything could have actually saved the US it would probably have been a decent education system. A fool with a gun is just an instrument of the tyrant in the information age.

It sounds harsh but it's actually quite sad.

This is a much more telling argument you put forward. Far too many of the persons who are acquiring firearms to be ready to take on a tyrannical government are insipid racists [that may well be redundant] or egotists who seek some sense of 'power' to salve their own self-doubts. Some of that community has been suffering from crania-inserted-rectally-syndrome for so long that they would not recognize valid news that just happened to support an opposing point of view even if it were printed on fine stationery and stapled to their gonads. I have decried self-chosen ignorance before, I will continue to do so, I will die having failed to alter the thinking of more than a few on this issue.

The damnable problem is that we have, on the whole, an excellent system for education wherein virtually anybody -- even from the most disadvantaged district -- can acquire education and earn degrees etc. As set up, the onus is on the individual to seek that education. Too many in my culture (and it is usually even worse in urban co-cultures) don't really care about education, or care about acquiring diplomas and degrees more than they do about actually learning anything. And yes, this renders far too many of them into fools and a fool with a gun is as likely to become the unknowing tool OF tyranny as they are to successfully oppose it. That comment of yours was NOT overly harsh, though it is indeed quite sad.

So, if you care to argue that the 2nd amendment, given the reality of our current existence and the vector we are on, SHOULD be amended, then that is a far more elegant argument.

Far too many gun control advocates just want to dismiss the 2nd amendment as outdated, or suggest that if the Founders had an inkling of how deadly weapons would become they would never have advocated such. As I have argued here, I believe that taking that approach to opposing the 2nd is specious, as it was never about personal firearm use per se in the first place. It was always about the ability of the citizenry to oppose the deadly force available to the government with a level of deadly force close enough in equivalency so as to serve as a check against government oppression. In that sense, I believe it to be no more outdated than is the 1st amendment or 4th amendment, which speak to equally important limitations on the powers of government to protect the rights of the individual against oppression.

Still, if you are of the opinion that government oppression is, and will remain, such a remote and unlikely occurrence that the right to keep and bear arms is functionally superfluous to prevent tyranny, and/or you feel that the ownership of high end weaponry is a source of tyranny, THEN you would be fully justified in arguing for a repeal or editing of the 2nd amendment. As noted above, assault style weaponry, multi-hundred rpm cyclic firearms, and 12.7mm ammunition is not needful for personal use for hunting and self defense.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"well-regulated militia" found yourself!

Btw, can't you remove or change the second amendment? Most countries can alter the constitution with 2/3rd of the vote in parliament or so. With 80% of the people wanting stricter controls, an actually representative congress should have the votes. Germany passed universal marriage in a similar fashion last year. Of course that necessitates that the USA are actually a democracy and not an oligarchy.

I'm a bit of a Constitutional purist, as you have probably gathered.

The second amendment does indeed state: "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."

18th Century grammar, spelling, and capitalization were more of an art then a rigid process back then. Nevertheless, the capitalizations of Militia, State, and Arms probably indicate some degree of emphasis. Modern US English would render the sentence with only one comma after the word State without capitalization, using italics or bolding any word for which some degree of extra emphasis was intended.

Most of the pro gun control crowd prefers to emphasize the first of the four clauses, "a well regulated militia" which to them implies that arms should be the province of the state government, who regulates the militia, and that citizens of that state should have a right under the aegis of their membership in this militia to keep and to bear arms. These gun control advocates assert that, as the National Guard and Air National Guard now function as the regulated portion of a state's militia (regulated by the UCMJ and under the leadership of the state's executive save when federalized), the arms under their control should fulfill the amendment's directive for security and that the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by non-militia is not so protected.

Numerous states have passed laws declaring all of their adult citizens to be part of the militia, thus obviating that argument.

The so far predominant interpretation holds that the central point of the amendment is embodied in the third and fourth clauses, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," as this portion of the sentence contains the subject and verb, which in English are deemed to be the dominant element for the generation of meaning in a sentence.

Pro-2nd amendment folks view this, therefore, as a clearly individual right that cannot be infringed by government, that the people (any sane adult citizen) should be able to keep and bear arms as their resources and preferences admit. To this side of the argument, the well-regulated militia and the security of the state are the product of an armed citizenry that cannot be "trumped" by a federal government because they keep and bear arms that can provide them the means to oppose such decisions as they feel are so tyrannical as to be broadly opposed (one dissenter would not be able to stop anything) and to warrant the use of force (opposition would require the risk of your own life).

Real purists assert that, as the arms referenced at the time were military grade (or nearly so), there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the types, numbers, and efficacy of the arms kept and borne by any sane adult citizen. This end of things suggests that pretty much ALL efforts to restrict arms of any sort or in any manner is unconstitutional.

As to changing the Constitution, there are two paths. The only one used thus far is by passing a further amendment. Such an amendment requires a joint resolution passed by 2/3 majority in both houses of the US Congress with said amendment then requiring ratification by 3/4 of the State legislatures of the respective states. This is how all of our amendments have thus far been promulgated.

The second choice is for 2/3 of the State legislatures to demand amendments or changes via the paneling of another Constitution convention. Such a convention could, with the historical precedent of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, not only consider and adopt amendments (the original mission of the Philadelphia convention was to improve the Articles of Confederation) but could propose an entirely new Constitution. Regardless, this would also have to be ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures.


EDIT:

It should be remembered that the 2nd amendment is part of the Constitution and is concerned with governmental powers and limitations thereunto. It is not about hunting or target shooting or even defending one's home or person.

Were that the reason for the right to keep and to bear arms, there would be little or no reason for assault weapons, 12+mm ammo, crew-served weapons, explosives or the like. Hunting and home defense are far better accomplished with a shotguns, or with rifles of less than 10mm bore. Even the effectiveness of handguns can be questioned, as a shotty is far less likely to miss, especially in semi-trained hands.

But the amendment is NOT about that, it is a check on the power of government.