2nd Amendment - what's the point?

[brightmoon]

Who are you even speaking to? I don't think you are really paying attention to anything being said and just generalizing because I said absolutely nothing of the sort:

I'm not speaking to anyone in particular, this is a discussion board about the Second Amendment.

It's very offensive when you do not listen to the person or people you are speaking to and generalize and mischaracterize their thoughts and beliefs.

My post was not directed toward you. In my opinion there is a propensity for many Americans to believe the right to bear arms is a sacred right guaranteed in their constitution when its really how SCOTUS has interpreted an amendment which is open to interpretation. Whether this conforms to your personal beliefs I don't know.

I did not mean to give offense

 

[sprinkles]

I'm not speaking to anyone in particular, this is a discussion board about the Second Amendment.



My post was not directed toward you. In my opinion there is a propensity for many Americans to believe the right to bear arms is a sacred right guaranteed in their constitution when its really how SCOTUS has interpreted an amendment which is open to interpretation. Whether this conforms to your personal beliefs I don't know.

I did not mean to give offense

You're fine.

You're also correct. But it's not only Americans interpreting it that way, it seems most everyone else is, too. They have to be interpreting it like that when they keep saying it is defacto a problem, even though several of us - including you - have pointed out that it is not that simple.

 

[brightmoon]

Yes the big court decision upholding the right to bear arms was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) which was a 5-4 decision, upheld by the narrowest of margins. Again from the Wikipedia article, which outlines the dissenting opinion, as expressed by Justice Stevens:

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice

 

[sprinkles]

Also note that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment doesn't get rid of guns.

We have a permissive system and therefore we don't enumerate every single thing that you're allowed to do. Removing the 2nd Amendment makes a lot of things more ambiguous instead of less. For example it would be unclear how it effects the National Guard in individual states.

Edit:
And also the fact that we don't enumerate everything means that if something does get enumerated, it must be considered pretty important.

 

[sprinkles]

Yes the big court decision upholding the right to bear arms was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) which was a 5-4 decision, upheld by the narrowest of margins. Again from the Wikipedia article, which outlines the dissenting opinion, as expressed by Justice Stevens:

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice

And it's a good point that the NFA isn't considered unconstitutional. I touched on this a little bit earlier. We've had plenty of gun control laws enacted over the years, and there will likely be more, so precedent really indicates that guns and the 2nd Amendment aren't as tied together as people want you to think.

It's mostly the NRA people that are hardlining the fact that gun control is supposedly unconstitutional. It isn't. If it were, we have a LOT of laws to repeal to make it right.

 

[Skarekrow]

I’ll just leave this here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

And this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

And this -

Obviously guns play NO factor at all in the perpetuation of violence said no one ever.
(yet sadly, people do say that)​

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Honestly Flavus I don't know how much is due to any particular belief. Everyone I know in my "real" world does not trust our government and is becoming increasingly agitated and alarmed at what they're seeing. Everyone I know in my real life also has a gun. Whether it be one in their closet inherited from their Dad - or one they purchased for a CHL class - we all have guns down here. As I stated before it's a normal thing and most view them as tools.

One aspect of comparing the US with other Western Societies is our age. Australia comes closest to us in terms of age of a society. Did you guys put the right to bear arms in your constitution?

The rest of Western Society has great stability within their cultures due to the fact they've been there on the land for 1000's of years. Some of the structures built back then are still being used today. We have nothing like that here in the US. We have no stability...no traditions...no long standing strength to inherit from our ancestors. We only know war and conquest and struggle to survive. For example the Great Depression was only 85 years ago...well within living people's memories. We've had Civil War. Who else in Western societies has had one in recent history? France comes to mind....but again they were an old society and had inherent strengths and coping skills no American has ever had. Plus.... France is one country...like one state. The US is a collection of disparate regions and 50 frikken states. Lots and lots of egos and power mongering opportunity.

imo - US citizens are suffering from ptsd and it's being highly triggered by the enormous effort of our media and those who own them to push Fear out into the minds of the general public. I mean you guys from other countries have got to be scratching your heads as to why we are the Bully on the globe...and I don't blame you one bit....for we do appear to be insane.

I am suggesting we are appearing insane precisely because those who are in charge....want us that way.

The Australian constitution is very different from the US. The US constitution seems to be a statement of identity emphasising freedom, liberty, equality, etc.. The Australian constitution is more like a boring owner's manual defining how federal/state government works, is elected, collects and shares tax, the judiciary, etc. Our constitution doesn't go into personal rights, or guns. That kind of stuff is dealt with by Common Law and Legislative Law.

If your government is fanning the flames of fear/unrest, is there any way to avoid it? I presume it is possible to live a fairly care-free life, without worrying about the stuff you mention? I mean, if a significant consideration about gun ownership is personal security (personal security requiring up to lethal force) - surely this level of concern is not something which would be a desirable to perpetuate into future generations for centuries. It surely can't be desirable to think that in another 400 years a significant number of Americans will still be owning guns in order to defend themselves against fellow Americans.

 

[sprinkles]

The Australian constitution is very different from the US. The US constitution seems to be a statement of identity emphasising freedom, liberty, equality, etc.. The Australian constitution is more like a boring owner's manual defining how federal/state government works, is elected, collects and shares tax, the judiciary, etc. Our constitution doesn't go into personal rights, or guns. That kind of stuff is dealt with by Common Law and Legislative Law.

If your government is fanning the flames of fear/unrest, is there any way to avoid it? I presume it is possible to live a fairly care-free life, without worrying about the stuff you mention? I mean, if a significant consideration about gun ownership is personal security (personal security requiring up to lethal force) - surely this level of concern is not something which would be a desirable to perpetuate into future generations for centuries. It surely can't be desirable to think that in another 400 years a significant number of Americans will still be owning guns in order to defend themselves against fellow Americans.

In 400 years I think humans will be either immortal or extinct.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

In 400 years I think humans will be either immortal or extinct.

If they are still around, I hope that they are better than we are. Happier than we are, without so many self-perpetuating problems.

 

[the]

No, it's just a point of transition. Whether or not arms are used justifiably or not depends on the circumstances and the outcome of the transition.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality

Does this help any?

No it does not as the patriots in the future will need weapons in order to present a more dangerous opposition to future tyrants. I think it best to continue to have weaponry on hand instead of requiring future generations to have to turn to black markets.

 

[brightmoon]

One aspect of comparing the US with other Western Societies is our age. Australia comes closest to us in terms of age of a society. Did you guys put the right to bear arms in your constitution?

Canadians created our Constitution in 1982. We didn't even think about or debate about including "a right to bear arms" Again this really doesn't exist in the US Constitution either.

The rest of Western Society has great stability within their cultures due to the fact they've been there on the land for 1000's of years. Some of the structures built back then are still being used today. We have nothing like that here in the US. We have no stability...no traditions...no long standing strength to inherit from our ancestors.

Yes Canada is the same, we do share this continent with you, but we don't have the gun culture you do.

The US is a collection of disparate regions and 50 frikken states. Lots and lots of egos and power mongering opportunity.

Ok Canada is also a collection of disparate regions, but again no gun culture

imo - US citizens are suffering from ptsd and it's being highly triggered by the enormous effort of our media and those who own them to push Fear out into the minds of the general public. I mean you guys from other countries have got to be scratching your heads as to why we are the Bully on the globe...and I don't blame you one bit....for we do appear to be insane.

We are exposed to the same media as you guys are. This is gun culture you have is something within you power to change, all it takes is the political will. As for your foreign policy this too can change if the political will is there.

I am suggesting we are appearing insane precisely because those who are in charge....want us that way.

Change is possible for America to the extent the American people want to change

 

[Matt3737]

No it does not as the patriots in the future will need weapons in order to present a more dangerous opposition to future tyrants. I think it best to continue to have weaponry on hand instead of requiring future generations to have to turn to black markets.

What relevance does this statement have to your original question?

 

[sprinkles]

Canadians created our Constitution in 1982. We didn't even think about or debate about including "a right to bear arms" Again this really doesn't exist in the US Constitution either.

Yes Canada is the same, we do share this continent with you, but we don't have the gun culture you do.

Ok Canada is also a collection of disparate regions, but again no gun culture

We are exposed to the same media as you guys are. This is gun culture you have is something within you power to change, all it takes is the political will. As for your foreign policy this too can change if the political will is there.

Change is possible for America to the extent the American people want to change

We're not a unified people currently. The term "American people" only goes so far as being the name of people who happen to live in this country.

Our states are almost like small countries with the way they operate as well. The Constitution provides the states a lot of leeway which makes them something between a country and a province. The USA as a whole is actually a union in principle.

 

[sprinkles]

And in fact, our constitution says that Federal powers are limited to what is actually in the constitution itself, and everything else is up to the states. That's the 10th Amendment.

 

[the]

What relevance does this statement have to your original question?

Quit being obtuse, this is exactly what the op is about.

 

[Kgal]

The Australian constitution is very different from the US. The US constitution seems to be a statement of identity emphasising freedom, liberty, equality, etc.. The Australian constitution is more like a boring owner's manual defining how federal/state government works, is elected, collects and shares tax, the judiciary, etc. Our constitution doesn't go into personal rights, or guns. That kind of stuff is dealt with by Common Law and Legislative Law.

If your government is fanning the flames of fear/unrest, is there any way to avoid it? I presume it is possible to live a fairly care-free life, without worrying about the stuff you mention? I mean, if a significant consideration about gun ownership is personal security (personal security requiring up to lethal force) - surely this level of concern is not something which would be a desirable to perpetuate into future generations for centuries. It surely can't be desirable to think that in another 400 years a significant number of Americans will still be owning guns in order to defend themselves against fellow Americans.

Personally I am practicing staying calm whenever I'm presented with someone in front of me getting caught up in fear...no matter the reasons.

Yeh....that's what I thought regarding the Australian constitution. I figured ours was pretty unique....

No. I do not see most of the people I know rallying up with their guns and marching on congress....UNLESS...like I said...they are slapped in the face due to some outrageous action on the part of congress....like passing a gun law saying no one can own any kind of gun.

..and no... I don't see us carrying around guns to protect ourselves from ourselves in 400 years. I actually believe you'll see huge changes in the US in the next five years or so which will lead to an equitable system for all of us. Things are coming to a head now...you see...

For example: I am watching mutiny happen at the little rural health clinic where I work. Right now it's all about money on the surface...but it's also about equality and equity being shared for all. The women are standing up to the "Good Ole Boys" who have always held a low opinion of women in general. There are many "first time ever" moments happening now on a daily basis.

Change is accelerating. Chaos is increasing. We need this to happen now....so don't despair Flavus. We will make it through this dark time and come out shining. Just send love however you can.

 

[wolkenkraetzer]

I don't give a fuck if there is a point or not. The constitution is by definition, a principle that cannot be compromised.

Then how do you explain those pesky things called "amendments"?
Just sayin'...

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

Then how do you explain those pesky things called "amendments"?
Just sayin'...

ur m0m, that's how

You're about 12 pages too late of me giving a fuck about this topic
just sayin

 

[just me]

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?

Actually, what does "shall not be" mean? Read it.

I really doubt an amendment will be written and passed by people who have no clue about reality.

"Right now, this cannot be changed. However, it may be later." Jeeez.

 

[Skarekrow]

How the U.S. Constitution Has Evolved Over Time
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/how-us-constitution-has-evolved-over-time

America has grown and changed during the last 200 years, and so has the U.S. Constitution, including amendments to our voting laws and age, and limiting presidential terms in office.




In 1787, only white men over 21 could vote, and the President could serve for as long as he was elected! These Constitutional amendments changed those laws.
15th Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1870, said that no citizen's vote could be taken away because of his race or color or because he was once a slave. In 1863, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, giving slaves their freedom. Nine years later this amendment gave citizens of all races the right to vote. It was a start in giving blacks full equality with whites.
19th Amendment. After this amendment was ratified in 1920, all women in the U.S. were allowed to vote. In 1787, men were always considered head of the household. Only they could vote. But women were becoming better educated. By 1848, they were working together to gain voting rights. Lawmakers were finally convinced 72 years later that women could vote as intelligently as men.
22nd Amendment. This amendment limits a president to two terms in office. George Washington started the presidential tradition of serving for two four-year terms. President Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected four terms in a row, was the first to break with this tradition. Many Americans thought that his four terms had allowed him to become too powerful. This national feeling helped get this amendment ratified in 1951.
26th Amendment. This amendment was passed in 1971, and it gave people 18 to 20 years old the right to vote. The national voting age had been 21. Eighteen-year-olds are old enough to join the U.S. armed forces. Many people think that this makes them old enough to vote for U.S. leaders, too. This amendment had widespread support. It was ratified in only four months.
Why has the Constitution changed?

Here's why, including what might be in store for the future of the Constitution.
You may have heard the U.S. Constitution called "a living document." Though it may seem like a dry piece of paper to you, it really is designed to live and grow as the nation grows.
Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times. Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law.
In the past 200 years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The 13th Amendment, in 1865, forever banned the practice of slavery. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, gave all citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race.
Americans have added laws only to take them back. In 1919, the 18th Amendment was passed. It banned the making and selling of alcohol. But it was impossible to get all people to stop drinking. Many people felt the government had no right to make laws about their private habits. So in 1933, the 21st Amendment was adopted. It repealed, or canceled, the 18th Amendment.
The nation may need amendments in the future. For example, advances in technology may change the way we communicate. Someday, we may be able to vote from our own homes, hooked into central computers through our TV sets. And what if we are able to live in space? We may need new laws to govern space life.
What kind of laws do you think we will need in the future? How would you change the Constitution if you could?

Newstime asked that question of people who've worked closely with the Constitution. Here are their responses.

Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1969-86: "It is not perfect, as Franklin said, but the best thing of its kind that was ever put together."

Jimmy Carter, President, 1977-81: "[One of the] changes I would like to see in the Constitution: Elect Presidents for one six- or seven-year term."

Gerald Ford, President, 1974-77: "I would favor repeal of the 22nd Amendment that imposes a two-term limitation on a President's service."

Richard Nixon, President, 1969-74: "I would lengthen the term of members of the House of Representatives from two years to four years. This would give them more time to concentrate on policy instead of politics!"