guns

[odeon]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.

Considering how it's still being debated, hundreds of years after the fact, I'd say it's anything but clear.

"Adaptable" sounds nicer than "vague", though.

[odeon]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.

If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.

[Jack]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.

Considering how it's still being debated, hundreds of years after the fact, I'd say it's anything but clear.

"Adaptable" sounds nicer than "vague", though.

Thinking it would be more problematic if it weren't debatable. The only reason it can be argued as unclear about who are the people the constitution grants rights, is based in arguments of what it meant then. That the meaning of who qualifies as a people has changed, is only matter of social evolution, so yes, that vagueness is important.

[Jack]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.

If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.

The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.

[odeon]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.

Considering how it's still being debated, hundreds of years after the fact, I'd say it's anything but clear.

"Adaptable" sounds nicer than "vague", though.

Thinking it would be more problematic if it weren't debatable. The only reason it can be argued as unclear about who are the people the constitution grants rights, is based in arguments of what it meant then. That the meaning of who qualifies as a people has changed, is only matter of social evolution, so yes, that vagueness is important.

I think you'd be better off without it, tbh, all things considered.

I realise you're not the only country in the world with ancient pieces of legislation but most others are doing away with the stuff that no longer fits. You're not; you're simply debating the phrasing, after all these years.

[odeon]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.

If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.

The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.

A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

[Jack]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.

If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.

The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.

A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

Not trying to get you to agree, and agreeing to disagree only ends the conversation; then there wouldn't be much to talk about.

[Al Swearegen]

I do not think it is all that hard. Considering the time it was written and it in context.

The British were rejected and by force. The Founding Fathers saw the value of arming the common person and how an armed populace could be if a government may turn tyrannical. That a populace being able to readily arm themselves and form an organised militia, could throw off efforts to subjugate a populace.

So it is hardly rocket science. You can say "but they did not realise that the Government would have better weapons and the scale of the weaponry." or "The Founding Fathers did not realise that some of these guns would be used to kill children in schools" or any other such argument. Cool, you can have these types of arguments. None of these in any way invalidate the original premise. 

[Calandale]

Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.

[Jack]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.

Considering how it's still being debated, hundreds of years after the fact, I'd say it's anything but clear.

"Adaptable" sounds nicer than "vague", though.

Thinking it would be more problematic if it weren't debatable. The only reason it can be argued as unclear about who are the people the constitution grants rights, is based in arguments of what it meant then. That the meaning of who qualifies as a people has changed, is only matter of social evolution, so yes, that vagueness is important.

I think you'd be better off without it, tbh, all things considered.

I realise you're not the only country in the world with ancient pieces of legislation but most others are doing away with the stuff that no longer fits. You're not; you're simply debating the phrasing, after all these years.

But it does still fit. Laws are constantly changing and evolving as society changes; there are always new circumstances with no precedent requiring a new look at what laws mean. The constitution is simply a foundation and should never be more than that. Ripping up the foundation would negate what's been built subsequently. Though not certain if you mean getting rid of the constitution entirely, or only the second amendment. Will assume the latter, because have never heard this type of argument against the constitution concerning any other rights. No one says I'd be better off without my freedom of speech or peaceful assembly, simply because they have limitations debated in and decided by the courts. The only reason the second amendment would no longer fit, would be in the instance of a ban. Is a ban what's suggested?

[Calandale]

Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.

And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.

[Jack]

Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.

And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.

Any hard foundationalism views regarding the constitution are in conflict with the constitution, because it's fundamentally designed to be amended.

[Calandale]

Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.

And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.

Any hard foundationalism views regarding the constitution are in conflict with the constitution, because it's fundamentally designed to be amended.

They wouldn't be in conflict, because it's ambiguous. The difference being, that instead of taking that
ambiguity properly into account, they want hard evidence of the views of those who agreed to it -
and the reasons for these very clever men to choose such ambiguous wording is simply not present.
Thus, to the foundationalist, it doesn't exist - even though the evidence is right before them.


Literalists are even scarier. Such, if taking the view properly, would remove the major power
from the Supreme Court at all, one which is not present in the Constitution.  They would be
experimenting with a government form which has never existed for this country.
Honestly though, a Foundationalist should be espousing the same: there was no indication
that the Founders desired such a massive power for the courts.

[Jack]

Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.

And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.

Any hard foundationalism views regarding the constitution are in conflict with the constitution, because it's fundamentally designed to be amended.

They wouldn't be in conflict, because it's ambiguous. The difference being, that instead of taking that
ambiguity properly into account, they want hard evidence of the views of those who agreed to it -
and the reasons for these very clever men to choose such ambiguous wording is simply not present.
Thus, to the foundationalist, it doesn't exist - even though the evidence is right before them.


Literalists are even scarier. Such, if taking the view properly, would remove the major power
from the Supreme Court at all, one which is not present in the Constitution.  They would be
experimenting with a government form which has never existed for this country.
Honestly though, a Foundationalist should be espousing the same: there was no indication
that the Founders desired such a massive power for the courts.

Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.

[DirtDawg]

I like guns, sometimes.