<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Have you seen how badly guns has fucked the States over? Sure there is the odd shooting in London, and some stabbings, but there is no gang banging (the shooting, not the 3-way). Imagine if the football firms (firms are like radical footy fans for their teams) ran around with Glocks? It would be bloodshed. It's to late too outlaw guns in the States. One of the worst Amendments in my opinion.</div> We have other issues that are the origins of gangs and their violent actions that have nothing to do with guns being legal. In the '20s, we banned alcohol and had a very similar sort of gang situation (ever hear of Al Capone?), and the Mob still exists today (read up on the NBA Ref busted for fixing games). It's a lot more complicated than just this one example (we ban marijuana, among other things vs. alcohol).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about living in the past, it's in not ignoring the basis of our entire political and legal system. You know, having an actual Constitution that can't be changed so easily.</div> Someone from England should be more understanding of why its important not to completely break established legal precedents over a single issue, given their common law system.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses. There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right. While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div> I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around. </div> You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
It's not about it being changed "easily". It's just because the government does not want to send the States into some crazed frenzy. If this was a case because it is unconstitutional, and because it stops the "Pursuit of Happiness" then wouldn't prostitution, and marijuana be legal? I'm sure that gives people some happiness.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses. There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right. While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div> I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around. </div> You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important. </div> Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about it being changed "easily". It's just because the government does not want to send the States into some crazed frenzy. If this was a case because it is unconstitutional, and because it stops the "Pursuit of Happiness" then wouldn't prostitution, and marijuana be legal? I'm sure that gives people some happiness.</div> It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about it being changed "easily". It's just because the government does not want to send the States into some crazed frenzy. If this was a case because it is unconstitutional, and because it stops the "Pursuit of Happiness" then wouldn't prostitution, and marijuana be legal? I'm sure that gives people some happiness.</div> I'm actually fine with that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses. There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right. While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div> I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around. </div> You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important. </div> Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either. </div> It depends how you look at it. It was set up so that it would be hard to change things, so that temporary majorities (or super-majorities) in Congress couldn't simply change things all willy-nilly. It's really a collection of general principles, to which laws must conform. As such, it protects a lot more than a more expansive document could, much less an easily-altered one.
Just to clarify. I may be English, but I grew up in the States... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.</div> Can you base the "natural human rights" off of something that allowed slavery? Surely not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Just to clarify. I may be English, but I grew up in the States... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.</div> Can you base the "natural human rights" off of something that allowed slavery? Surely not. </div> You'd have to ask a Jeffersonian about that tortuous logic train. Hamilton, later in life the head of a major NY abolitionist society, was unequivocally opposed to slavery on that ground. Interesting that you bring up slavery though - it comes up in J. Scalia's Opinion. Have you read it yet? It's a bit long and occasionally repetitive, but so are the dissents...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 08:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses. There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right. While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div> I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around. </div> Both conservatives and Liberals/Progressives assault the Bill of Rights, but different amendments. Liberals have assaulted the 1st amendment (religious freedoms, free speech) and the 2nd (right to bear arms), among others. Conservatives don't recognize the separation of Church and State (also 1st amendment), and right to privacy among others. For me, this decision isn't just about the right to own a gun, it's about the Court standing up for the Bill of Rights. Unlike Liberals and Conservatives, I believe in all 10 amendments, and mostly the 10th (look it up).
How do you guys feel about banning only certain types of guns? For instance, guns that can be easily concealed or automatic assualt weapons. You have to admit it's pretty crazy that people can go out and buy some of the same weapons our military uses in combat.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Just to clarify. I may be English, but I grew up in the States... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.</div> Can you base the "natural human rights" off of something that allowed slavery? Surely not. </div> It wasn't Americans who brought Africans over here to become slaves. We inherited a lot of moral issues that were entrenched by about 300 years of European Kings and Corporations trying to loot the place for what they could. I'm not trying to slam the British, in particular, as it's pretty obvious that the Spanish were bloody mass-murderers on the grandest of scales. Slavery, as we knew it, was designed by the East India Tea Company (a British Company) if you want to read up on it. The institution of Slavery is something you can't only look at through the lens of today's morality. In those days, black people were (misguidedly, wrongly, etc.) treated as animals. Cattle. Property. The constitution goes a long way to discuss and protect property rights. "Animals" are under Man's domain to rule over, according to the Bible. However, Slavery was hardly popular throughout the colonies. There were many abolitionists at the time who influenced the constitution, and that document had to be a compromise among all the interests of 13 disparate colonies. What is written in the constitution (from day 1) is that the Slave Trade would be abolished within about 20 years, and to penalize states who allowed Slavery (it wasn't allowed in all 13), 3/5ths representation for the black population. The 3/5ths provision may be seen two ways. One as devaluing the worth of a human being (which I don't believe is true), and the other as denying those Slave States full representation for their people at the federal level. This latter point is misunderstood by most, IMO. Our nation is a work in progress. We've made enormous progress over the past 200+ years. To the point a black man, whose family has the blood of slaves, may well be elected president. Over 500,000 men died in our bloodiest war, brought about by Slavery and the lesser representation for the Southern States, and which ended the institution forever here. I would also raise the point that our legal system is strongly based upon British Common Law. Except for Louisiana, which is a very odd place (for lawyers) because they're law is based upon French Common Law. I have a much longer rant, but no need to get into that at this point
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The 10th is redundant.</div> The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
Yes, the English started slavery over here, but we were the first to abolish it also. You cannot blame us for something your "Patriots" decided to keep. I know a lot about American history, but I am lacking in the Civics department. Seems a bit dreary to me.
