Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

The UN repulses me, they want to take away the guns of US citizens and just look at the heads of the council

Bill, look at it logically. If you're having AO-related medical issues for just walking there and being there for a little while, imagine what it has done to the people who actually live there, the local ecosystem, water and soil.

It amazes me, sometimes, Ilija, where your words are emitted from.

I guess the test of civility came to an end.

The test of civility is not over. Keep it above the belt guys.

Well, Bill if it were up to me America would worry about our internal problems first before we started trying to save the rest of the world.

I couldn't agree more, Josh. I say to mind our own business. That includes not sending billions of dollars in aid every year to practically everyone because they can't make it on their own. I think it's time to chop down the global money tree.

The only thing is, the U.S. has been attacked by Arabs on more than one occasion. That needs to stop. I don't care what reason they have for flying jet liners into our buildings.

Ilija... I didn't think I was being any more sarcastic than your previous posts that were definitely made with insult towards America as the intention. So, if you are saying civility has ended... it ended with you. Me saying that your words, appearing to come from left field, wasn't quite as harsh as you basically infering that Americans are the scurge of the earth.

I'm just trying to say you don't know as much as you think you do. Am I supposed to concede that all your years of wisdom override what anyone else has to say? Having over 3,000 posts doesn't give you all the answers, my friend.

I have had many civil discussions on those topics. They remain civil as long as we discuss the topic and all attacks are on statements or assumptions. It becomes heated when the attacks become personal. So, I plan to keep to the topic and avoid personal attacks, and I intend to call anyone who starts making it personal.

The 2nd amendment does not provide an absolute right to own and carry a weapon. Notice that it starts out by talking about militia. Although the law is far from settled, most often that amendment is thought of as relating to militia and even the term “bear” was (before the amendment) most often used in the sense of bearing arms for your country. As recently as the Civil War, there was no US Army, but a collection of individual state militia that formed up into the army. That’s the context of the amendment. So, there isn’t an absolute constitutional right to own and carry weapons. If there were, no government could regulate them. So, that’s not a really persuasive argument.

I’m a fence sitter on this. I remember a time when a nut came onto a commuter train with an automatic weapon and killed a whole bunch of innocent people. My immediate thought as that it never would have happened if someone with a hand had been there to take the guy out. On the other hand I think of the recent incident in the Amish school house and Colombine. There has t be some regulation.

I think guns should be licensed like driving, and there should be different licenses for different types of weapons. There should be a competency test, a psychological test, and a background check. Carrying an unlicensed, concealed weapon should be a felony.

Weapons are widely available because it’s a big business. We need some laws placing liability on dealers whose weapons consistently turn up in the wrong hands, and some liability on companies that keep supplying such dealers.

Bill, I never implied that having 3000 posts makes me any more intelligent or better educated than someone with 3 posts. When it comes to razor-related issues, it's no contest that you've provided more pertinent information with your 1000.
It seems like you're equating Afghanis with Arabs. That would be like equating North Americans with Germans. Afghanis are generally not a semitic tribe like Jews and Arabs but they took on Islam. I am not justifying 9/11 (far from it) but you can't just start attacking Islamic nations just because one terrorist group successfuly executed an attrocious operation. Sadam had fewer ties with Osama than the Bush family. In addition to that, since you are blaming all the Arabs, why not attack Morocco as well? They actually ARE predominantly Arabic, even though they are moderate.
Insulting the US foreign policies with facts and logic is the only thing I can do in response to a greater insult -- a Tomahawk hitting a hospital (with no military objectives in the vicinity) where my great aunt was staying, thus killing her. If I were to follow the foreign policies that you agree on, I'd have to start bombing hospitals in the USA, UK and Germany. Since I'm a non-violent person, I obviously won't be doing or supporting anything like that. The violence has to stop somewhere.
I have no issues with most US citizens on an individual basis. However when your country acts to satisfy its internal political goals or global economic goals, it DOES act like the scurge of the Earth. You have 2 on-going wars only one of which has some justification and are already looking at Iran.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

1) Even though it's in your constitution doesn't mean it's right for current application.

That's not a valid argument. It's intended to have application today, but as I said, it doesn't provide an unconditional right.

The danger of government abuse is ever presnt, and the vote doesn't solve it. In the 1930s, Germany had a democracy, until one day some terrorists set fire to the legislative building. To protect against terrorism, the president curtailed most civil rights by decree. That paved the way for the nazi takeover.

So, the concern of the 2nd amendment is quite important today.

Originally Posted by rickw

The phrase "the right of the people , shall not be infringed" appears in some form maybe four times in the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Why is it that when it comes to the second amendment, it suddenly doesn't mean "the people"?

It does, but why do you ignore the first part of the amendment where it's associated with maintainng a militia? You can't simply pretend it's not there, and that accountsfor the different treatment. If te amendment didn't include that language, I might agree with you.

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

Although the law is far from settled, most often that amendment is thought of as relating to militia and even the term “bear” was (before the amendment) most often used in the sense of bearing arms for your country.

Exactly.

In 1840, after a Tennessee man had been arrested for carrying a concealed Bowie knife, his appeal on 2nd amendment grounds was heard before the state supreme court. The court's decision was explicit about what it means to "bear arms":

"The words 'bear arms' too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution." (italics in original)

The decision concluded even more explicitly:

"We know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane." (italics in original)

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

It does, but why do you ignore the first part of the amendment where it's associated with maintainng a militia? You can't simply pretend it's not there, and that accountsfor the different treatment. If te amendment didn't include that language, I might agree with you.

This brings up the definition of milita, wich is a whole seperate sub-argument in itself. It is my understanding that the definition of what constituted a milita was left to the decree of the individual states. In some states I think it was restricted to landholders while in others it was every able bodied adult male while in still others the milita constituted only those who volunteered to serve. I guess that today the milita could be as few people as those who serve in the states own little army (who has official ones any more) or as many as every voting age adult. Its kind of open to interpetation.