A Troubling Poll

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it has too much room for interpretation in it. No one can agree on what a "well regulated militia" actually is and that's pretty much the source of the argument. You'll also find plenty of argument to what "infringed" means. Obviously, those states that have passed background check laws do not consider these laws to be an infringement that violates the 2nd Amendment.

You'll not find that much latitude with the 14th Amendment. It is quite clear, IMO.

That's only become an 'interpretation problem' in the last 10 years, and primarily by the liberals trying to re-write the 2nd amendment.  Most understand it the way it is written.

[1776]

Ah, now I understand.  We can pick an chose what part of the Constitution is absolute and what part is up for "interpertation".

[StSanta]

Heh "deflect and cover" tactic.

Also known as a strawman argument.

Keep building 'um and knocking 'um down; amusing to watch  

[Sandman]

Please... explain.

I think that you'll find that the debate is not new. I've done a cursory search and found articles in case law as far back as 1822 regarding 2nd Amendment issues.

1776, you tell me what is open for debate here: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There wouldn't be a debate at all if the 2nd Amendment were written this well. As I interpret the 2nd Amendment, arms includes quite a number of things. I could use the the 2nd to justify my keeping anything from a sword to a cannon at home.

Is the military considered to be the "well regulated militia" or is that some group in Montana?

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

[1776]

Please, spare us case law.    

We aren't lawyers here.  Am just a mid-western bigot,sexist, homophobe, right winger.  

Is it true that only part of the Consitiution is open to interpertation?


"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,"

Hmmmmmmmmmm, and what can of worms has been opened with this?  

We need to start a new thread as this puppy is getting long!!!

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: 1776 ]

[eskimo2]

Yesterday I heard a FBI big-shot on CNN recruiting people who speak Arabic...  
In spite of the fact that they are hearing stories about their friends and relatives being mistreated and their churches being burned, many American citizens (of Arabic decent) are about to step up to the front line in our new war, and dedicate their lives to a honorable form of public service, because of their patriotism...  

I do not like going through airport security, and have always dreaded the idea of being pulled out of line for a closer look into my intents.  Being treated differently at airport security IS a bid deal. It says "You look like a Bad Person".  I just guess I'm lucky that they don't profile ugly people...

I honestly do not think that most folks who do not understand what is wrong with racial profiling are bigots or racists, they just have not taken a serious look at it's full implications.  Sometimes us white guys are kind of slow at these kind of things...

eskimo

[Toad]

Don't turn this into a "2nd thread".If you want to do that, start another thread. We've hashed this out before. Those who don't understand the 2nd or find it confusing almost of necessity have to start with an anti-gun bias. The Amendment itself is pretty clear and the Case Law that supports it has made it even more so.
*****

One thing you ARE going to see, IMO, is a large restriction on carry-on baggage. This has always been a problem; it's hard to get it all stowed on the aircraft, people have been injured when big bags fall out of bins when the bins are opened..etc.

I suspect we'll see a restriction to ONE carry on bag. A purse, a computer case, perhaps a briefcase size bag. The F/A's were asking for this long BEFORE the 11th.

This will make it possible to have better security at the X-ray machines. Right now, most people bring at least 2 carryons, some still try to slip thru with 3.

Cutting the carryon inspections by 50% will definitely help the problem. It gives more time to deal with each passenger without making security such an issue that people will just drive.

There's the BIG problem I see right now.

If driving from A to B takes 6 hours, many people would rather fly.

However, if you have to be at the airport 3 hours prior to flight for "security" and then fly for 1.5 hours and pick up your bags (another .5 hours)... People are just going to drive if they possibly can.

The airlines NEED that shorthaul traffic to survive. They can't make it in just a "long haul" configuration.

The short haul commuters are a major part of the revenue stream and they fly to places that you can generally drive to in 3-4 hours.

Somehow, we've got to get adequate security in a short-duration mode.

I think the "one carry-on" is going to be a logical step.

[Pyro]

Constitutional encroachments are not a liberal vs conservative issue.  It comes from both sides.  In sacrificing liberty for security, people really want to sacrifice other people's liberty for their security.  Unfortunately, people pick and choose what rights are important and tend to ignore or attack the others.  I don't care whether you're talking about the 1st, 2nd, or any other Amendment.  They all come in one package.

[1776]

They are also interdependent.  Change one and you may have unintended consequences to others!!

Founding Fathers were inspired!!  I believe they had Devine guidence.

Now take it easy on me for the last statement it is only my opinion.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Pyro:
Constitutional encroachments are not a liberal vs conservative issue.  It comes from both sides.  In sacrificing liberty for security, people really want to sacrifice other people's liberty for their security.  Unfortunately, people pick and choose what rights are important and tend to ignore or attack the others.  I don't care whether you're talking about the 1st, 2nd, or any other Amendment.  They all come in one package.

No argument from me. My references to the 2nd Amendment were simply for comparison and contrast.

[Kratzer]

Amen.

[Toad]

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." Thomas Jefferson, 1801

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." Thomas Jefferson, 1823

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, 1823

[Hangtime]

Dammit..

Lets remember who the enemy is.. and who we are... and what it means to protect ourselves, our future, our children.

We have in the past, as a nation under seige, taken extrordinary liberties with the constitution in order to preserve and defend this nation and it's citizens. No one here is about to state that ALL those decisions were correct, that ALL those decisions were just... but guess what?? Suprise, lo and behold folks; we survived, our nation endured.

Now, we are in an extrordinary battle, one unforseen by our fore-fathers. Some freedoms HAVE ALREADY become temporary casulties of this war, and we may yet see more.

I doubt we'd have much of a chance of victory against terrorisim, and we'd be doing our citizens a grave injustice by NOT 'profiling' in this case, at this time.

If I see our government PERMANENTLY derailing large parts of the constitution and reserving for itself ALONE the rights of it's citizens, then I'll be out in the street; kickin bellybutton again and takin names. And so; I'm sure; will every one of YOU. AFTER this fight is over.

For now, HERE, as it stands, in this battle, changes ARE necessary.. and it's not liberals vs conservitive, arab vs white or muslim vs christian. It's good vs evil; civilization vs the darkness. That's an awful mandate, one that begs a rethink of 'personal' liberties in the light of saftey for all.

Lets do what we gotta do to win this. Then  we can go back to being the complacent american amazinhunks everybody loves to hate.

To WAR gents; WE GO TO WAR! Remember NYC!

[eskimo2]

In December of 1941, I am sure that many similar discussions took place in regards to American citizens of Japanese decent.  What our government did, as a result of how the majority of people felt about Japanese Americans, is despicable.  
In 1941:  
We were angry.  
We had a lot at stake.  
We were frustrated.  
We couldn't do much to vent our frustrations.  
We couldn't do much to help ourselves feel safer about our nations security.
We turned to the obvious scape-goat.
We screwed up.

I hope that we learned something.

eskimo

[Sandman]

Ahem...

The enemy is the enemy because we are the way we are. I see no reason to stoop to their level.

Like Pyro, I too have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Consitution... twice. I will not violate that oath for vengeance sake nor would I advise anyone else to.