BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of 2nd Ammendment

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><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.
</div>

But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 26 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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>

Its not only crazy its absurd. In every state here in the US, you have murders happening every single night, because there are so many damn guns in the streets. There is not a ghetto anywhere in the US without guns or automatic guns. Thats a direct result of people being able to bear arms.


By the way I'm a republican, will vote for McCain, but when it comes to guns, I'm against them to the end.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><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.
</div>

But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
</div>

It's the exclamation point at the end of that sentence

The constitution on its own isn't so clear. It enumerates powers, but the actual governing part is deliberately left murky. Congress has the right to pass laws. The President can veto. But what are the nature of laws that are allowed to be passed? The Bill of Rights was absolutely needed to put in place the guideline that those laws cannot infringe upon Natural Rights.
</div>

It should have been clear, a limited government with power in certain areas - as spelled out in the text itself. The murkiness isn't derived from the text, but from gross misapplication of clauses like the Necessary and Proper clause.

You've read Federalist 84, so I guess we don't need to rehash Mason versus Hamilton here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 10:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 26 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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>

Its not only crazy its absurd. In every state here in the US, you have murders happening every single night, because there are so many damn guns in the streets. There is not a ghetto anywhere in the US without guns or automatic guns. Thats a direct result of people being able to bear arms.


By the way I'm a republican, will vote for McCain, but when it comes to guns, I'm against them to the end.
</div>

Heh

You got the 2nd sentence wrong. Because there's ghettos, people in the ghettos have more a need of guns for protection (and other purposes).

Get rid of the ghettos and what do you get?
</div>

Finland?

[Speaking of high per capita gun ownership...]

 

You guys know pretty well what I'm saying though.

 

This is a triumph for all those residents of Washington D.C. that want to buy a handgun to protect themselves.

Beyond Capitol Hill and Georgetown, Washington D.C. is one of the worst cities in America. The criminals have the guns but the citizens who have to deal with these insane people can't. So this is a great ruling.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><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.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.

btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.

 

This is good to know, all these wacko in this world, you gotta protect yourself with something.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><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.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.

btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.
</div>

It sounds like you're at least somewhat partial to the 'Living Constitution' school of thought. Do you generally find yourself in agreement with Justice Stevens?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><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.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.

btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.
</div>

It sounds like you're at least somewhat partial to the 'Living Constitution' school of thought. Do you generally find yourself in agreement with Justice Stevens?
</div>
Yea, I think I am. I don't know much about Justice Stevens (is he in that link you posted?), but I read an article by Waluchow once that I really agreed with.

 

Justice Stevens wrote one of the two dissents, yeah. If you get a chance, check out some videotaped debates/discussions between Stevens and Scalia. They're entertaining and informative - both seem to be having fun.

 

<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lt;object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/djc_k0oIc10&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/djc_k0oIc10&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> &"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lt;object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/djc_k0oIc10&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/djc_k0oIc10&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> &" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>

Antonin Scalia is a rockstar.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions)

The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div>

What the fuck?

I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts.


I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs...

EXCELLENT idea.
</div>

Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime.
</div>

Brilliant!

Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime.

(Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough).

What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns.

Hypocrisy at its finest.
</div>

If they are going to commit crimes anyway, what difference will it make?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If we're supposed to have a "living document" as constitution, why didn't they write "this document should be liberally interpreted, ignored when convenient, and otherwise pointed to only when you care about the harm govt. is doing" in it?</div>
You're not supposed to have one. The US constitution wasn't designed that way. I was just saying that I prefer that model more.