Another right may bite the dust

[Arlos]

That doesn't always work though. What about single parents with no relatives to look after the baby? Day care is completely prohibitively expensive, and as such is generally not an option. Hard to have someone out cleaning grafitti for hours at a time when there's no one to look after the infant, yes?

Also, what about people with serious medical issues? Guy I know has a really bad version of Epilepsy. It's mostly controlled by drugs, but not entirely; there exists the constant risk that at any time he could simply fall down in a convulsing fit. How can he work most jobs like that? Certainly no deliberate fault of his, but there's absolutely nothing he can do about it, either.

Anyway, platitudes like what you said are all well and good, but certainly do not and cannot apply universally.

-Arlos

[Gaazy]

Yeah thats kind of what I was gettin to. There are definitely many people who really need the helping hand for whatever reason, but findin a desirable way to screen out the worthless fucks that dont deserve it would be the hard part

[Harrison]

NO ONE was talking about those people Arlos.

We're talking about the dirty cocksucking, drug-dealing, using, baby-pumping <people> mod edit two blocks away from my house in subsidized housing getting WIC, welfare, health insurance, $100 rent from section 8 housing, etc. with their denali...

Those people need to be shot.


Voice of Mod: Sorry, racial slurs are not allowed in the moderated areas. If you must use them, confine them to EE. That is all.

[Evermore]

That doesn't always work though. What about single parents with no relatives to look after the baby? Day care is completely prohibitively expensive, and as such is generally not an option. Hard to have someone out cleaning grafitti for hours at a time when there's no one to look after the infant, yes?

Also, what about people with serious medical issues? Guy I know has a really bad version of Epilepsy. It's mostly controlled by drugs, but not entirely; there exists the constant risk that at any time he could simply fall down in a convulsing fit. How can he work most jobs like that? Certainly no deliberate fault of his, but there's absolutely nothing he can do about it, either.

Anyway, platitudes like what you said are all well and good, but certainly do not and cannot apply universally.

-Arlos

You would obviously make exceptions for the medically disabled. The mother thing would have to be worked out. You would make this work bud. IE start a day care service and have mothers in this position run it. there is an idea to start with. What needs to happen is to stop comming up with reasons why these things wont work and come up with ways to make them feasable.

[Arlos]

Well, I have never denied that there are people getting "assistance" who have no real need of it, and are abusing the system. Look at just about ANY complicated social system, and you'll find people abusing it. That's humanity for you, sad as that is.

The thing is, since no system can be perfect, you have to select what direction you want it to lean, as it were. Do you want it restrictive, which means few as possible cheats, but it likely will end up excluding many people who DO need it. Or, do you have it more open, so that you're sure you get help to everyone who needs it, and accept that as a cost of that, you end up with more people cheating. I can see arguments both ways, but just on a personal level, I'd rather it be more open, to make sure that the people who really do need the help, get it.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

prohibitively expensive

<derail>

whoa, that is so weird. i read your post after you posted it thinking hmm, that's an interesting way to put it, i've never heard those two words paired together. then, when i was just reading my book, it said "... with a craftsmanship that would have been prohibitively expensive to replace now."

so weird.

</derail>

[Evermore]

Well, I have never denied that there are people getting "assistance" who have no real need of it, and are abusing the system. Look at just about ANY complicated social system, and you'll find people abusing it. That's humanity for you, sad as that is.

The thing is, since no system can be perfect, you have to select what direction you want it to lean, as it were. Do you want it restrictive, which means few as possible cheats, but it likely will end up excluding many people who DO need it. Or, do you have it more open, so that you're sure you get help to everyone who needs it, and accept that as a cost of that, you end up with more people cheating. I can see arguments both ways, but just on a personal level, I'd rather it be more open, to make sure that the people who really do need the help, get it.

-Arlos

no more free rides!

[Lueyen]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The reasons and qualifications for not infringing on the right of the people matter little in discussion of if that right is enumerated. Basic reading comprehension, it is an enumerated right, with an additional statement regarding why it is important to preserve. Considering at the time the constitution was drafted, if a need arose to defend the country, it would have certainly required the aid of an armed civilian populace that provided that armament it's self, and so this concern was paramount. That does not mean however that there was no other reason to specifically enumerate this right, that was just the most prominent at the time.

Why then was the justification clause included in this particular amendment where in others it was not? Quite simply "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not denote specifically what type. By including a reference to militia it makes it clear that the types of arms being referred to are those that would be used in the context of military defense. In other words not only does the second amendment enumerate the right, but it also alludes to the degree. What types of arms is it the right of the people to possess, those up to and including those employed by the military in the context of basic infantry (the purpose a militia at the time would serve). Applying that to modern day, it would be unreasonable to expect a soldier to go into combat with a firearm that was not considered an "assault weapon", which is why I view assault weapons bans as unconstitutional.

[Eziekial]

All the rights are personal given to everyone by their Creator.

[Arlos]

An alternate reading of that, Leuyen, is that the right to bear arms is limited to solely within the context of if they're part of a militia, and commensurate with their duties therein. Therefore, if one is not part of an organized militia, the right does not apply, since it was enumerated solely within the context of membership within a militia. Recall that at the time the Constitution was written, there was not much in the way of professional armies worldwide, so a militia was seen as the main means of national defense against a foreign power. In any case, with this type of reading, it could be argued that since we are now in the days of professional armies, the right is an archaic and outmoded one that no longer really applies, much like the constitutional provision that slaves are worth 3/5 of a free person also no longer applies.


Now, I am not saying personally that that is how that line should be interpreted, I am just saying that it is equally as valid a reading as your interpretation that it gives ordinary citizens the right to all military grade weaponry, such as machine guns, guided missiles, etc.

Again, my personal stance is that average citizens DO have the right to have firearms, but not military grade ones. Furthermore, I think that it is in societies best interest if there were required safety training and certifications required for people to keep firearms they own at home. (store them at a firing range if you don't want to get the certification). Likewise, people with severe psychological issues (like that guy who shot all those people at VT) should probably not be allowed to buy firearms. Given that my little brother was within 15 seconds or so of taking a rifle round in the chest when he was 2 years old due to someone being utterly irresponsible with a firearm, I feel the need for safety rather strongly.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

An alternate reading of that, Leuyen, is that the right to bear arms is limited to solely within the context of if they're part of a militia, and commensurate with their duties therein. Therefore, if one is not part of an organized militia, the right does not apply, since it was enumerated solely within the context of membership within a militia. Recall that at the time the Constitution was written, there was not much in the way of professional armies worldwide, so a militia was seen as the main means of national defense against a foreign power. In any case, with this type of reading, it could be argued that since we are now in the days of professional armies, the right is an archaic and outmoded one that no longer really applies, much like the constitutional provision that slaves are worth 3/5 of a free person also no longer applies.

Again I'm quite well aware of the argument in relation to a militia being used as a reasoning that we can pervert the second amendment to have a stipulation on a right. Taken in the context of the bill of rights, whose over all primary purpose is one of "these are areas where government does not tread", the idea that in this particular case with one amendment we should start reading in stipulations as to whether that stated right is still valid is laughable to me. In the wording it puts forth that it is a right, and gives a reason for not allowing it to be violated by government, you have a statement and a justification. Slaves being counted as 3/5's is an entirely different matter, and again the historical context is significant. States with a high population of slaves wanted to have it both ways, they wanted to count them as people for purposes of calculating the number of representatives that a district had, and at the same time deny them them their rights as citizens. The question of slavery even at that time was one that broiled under the surface, and it took the country a very long time to rectify it. To create and hold the fragile union together it probably seemed and perhaps was necessary to make this sort of compromise, but in the end it was not that supporters of the 3/5's clause thought of slaves as 3/5's of a person, but realized slavery was incongruent with the ideals of the government being formed. It was a diplomatic solution to a problem and one that put pressure on states to get rid of slavery, obviously these efforts failed.

Now, I am not saying personally that that is how that line should be interpreted, I am just saying that it is equally as valid a reading as your interpretation that it gives ordinary citizens the right to all military grade weaponry, such as machine guns, guided missiles, etc.

I'll reintegrate a bit what I was talking about in regards to what I previously alluded to as the justification clause being a measuring stick in regards to exactly what is meant as "arms" in reference to the 2nd, would be standard infantry type weapons, for instance it would eliminate me from owning an ICBM with a nuclear warhead as that is not something a foot soldier generally carries into the field, however an M-16 would be perfectly acceptable. In short just because a firearm is fully automatic I don't believe the government has the power to make laws forbidding it's possession. When it comes to something like an stinger missile system I would argue that it's not something that would be standard issue for infantry, and beyond that you delve into storage and care of explosive materials for which there are already laws that while not applying directly to weaponry could be applicable.

Again, my personal stance is that average citizens DO have the right to have firearms, but not military grade ones. Furthermore, I think that it is in societies best interest if there were required safety training and certifications required for people to keep firearms they own at home. (store them at a firing range if you don't want to get the certification). Likewise, people with severe psychological issues (like that guy who shot all those people at VT) should probably not be allowed to buy firearms. Given that my little brother was within 15 seconds or so of taking a rifle round in the chest when he was 2 years old due to someone being utterly irresponsible with a firearm, I feel the need for safety rather strongly.

-Arlos

Required safety training I have little issue with provided there is a safeguard to make sure that it is not used as prevention of obtainment, but as prevention of mistakes and accidents. As an example if there were a safety training program in place, but the cost to the individual were five times that of the cost of the purchase of a fire arm that would be abuse of the intent. When it comes to certifications I'm quite a bit less inclined to agree. While I see the intent, it is far more open to abuse depending on specifics on implementation.

In regards to people with severe psychological issues, we already deny the right of fire arm possession to convicted felons. While I do believe there should be some time line limitation on this, it is a prudent thing to do. However we are basing this denial of right on an individuals actions and only after a court ruling. I would like to see a check if you will via the courts, although unlike felony trials I would be comfortable with it taking the form of a challenging hearing, simply because I think it would be silly to have to have a court ruling on an individual due to mental condition if the individual did not have any interest in owning a firearm.

[Arlos]

Well, I put the emphasis more on passing a certification exam, because there may be cases where someone has learned enough from a parent, say, that they don't need an actual class. Plus, just taking a class doesn't mean you actually learned anything, right? How many people take driver's training classes, yet still fail their driver's test?

That's why I said there should be classes available (perhaps from local police departments or national guard armories, say) for a nominal fee for those who actually need the formalized training. But the primary aspect should be a safety certification exam, which includes actual range time with firing the weapon. (again, for a nominal fee.) Note that it would be completely legal to OWN a gun without passing that certification test, it just wouldn't be legal to take it anywhere outside a firing range. So, you could own the guns, but would just have to store them at a licensed range, on the assumption that unsafe owners are of least danger to anyone at a formal firing range than anywhere else, and so they can keep their right to own the gun, just in a way where they're not likely to hurt anyone. Pass the certification exam, take the guns home, no problem.

As for your stance on military weapons, it could be argued that an M60 is a typical infantry weapon, as most certainly are grenades. So are submachine guns, arguably. Sorry, but I cannot agree on this instance, I see no legitimate purpose to a civilian having an M60 for "home protection", and a myriad of negatives to automatic weapons being generally available. How many more people would that guy at VT have killed if he'd had an H&K Mp5 instead of a pistol? Hell, how about something like the AA-12 full-auto Shotgun, if you want REALLY scary? Sorry, no.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

If you sign up for welfare, you should have to punch a clock. there is plenty of municipal work that needs to be done. Philly needs a good cleaning and alot of graffiti removal etc..

I think that's kinda how it shoudl work too

you don't get a free ride, you show up to do some grunt work, or whatever and honestly collect a paycheque

I'd also be alright with some sort of military service assignment

[brinstar]

dear tikker

military service might go too far, but i agree with the rest. you shouldn't get a paycheque (lol) for nothing.

love,
brinstar

[Evermore]

If you sign up for welfare, you should have to punch a clock. there is plenty of municipal work that needs to be done. Philly needs a good cleaning and alot of graffiti removal etc..

I think that's kinda how it shoudl work too

you don't get a free ride, you show up to do some grunt work, or whatever and honestly collect a paycheque

I'd also be alright with some sort of military service assignment

ya something like this I would happily turn tax dollars over for. Something like this could solve alot of problems.

[ClakarEQ]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The reasons and qualifications for not infringing on the right of the people matter little in discussion of if that right is enumerated. Basic reading comprehension, it is an enumerated right, with an additional statement regarding why it is important to preserve. Considering at the time the constitution was drafted, if a need arose to defend the country, it would have certainly required the aid of an armed civilian populace that provided that armament it's self, and so this concern was paramount. That does not mean however that there was no other reason to specifically enumerate this right, that was just the most prominent at the time.

Why then was the justification clause included in this particular amendment where in others it was not? Quite simply "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not denote specifically what type. By including a reference to militia it makes it clear that the types of arms being referred to are those that would be used in the context of military defense. In other words not only does the second amendment enumerate the right, but it also alludes to the degree. What types of arms is it the right of the people to possess, those up to and including those employed by the military in the context of basic infantry (the purpose a militia at the time would serve). Applying that to modern day, it would be unreasonable to expect a soldier to go into combat with a firearm that was not considered an "assault weapon", which is why I view assault weapons bans as unconstitutional.

I appreciate your opinion but it is just that, your opinion and your spin. It is open to interpretation, that is a fact, and it can be spun fore and against your opinion. The simple fact is the 2nd amendment has not be ratified by our supreme court and that makes it plausible to ban all firearms for the civilian populace (and yes that would be extreme crazy but fact none the less).

I don't get it though, this issue is such a sweet spot for some folks but they never seem to be consistent. We lose minor first amendment rights, we lose "minor" rights of privacy, etc, but this little hot button, o noes, not my guns
sorry, some of that was flame bait.

[Evermore]

since when does the supreme count have to ratify original articles of the consitution?

not speaking for anyone else but I am just as adamite about any loss of personal freedoms

[Arlos]

He has a point in one thing though. How many people even on here (Hi lueyen!) have argued positions that accepted loss of civil liberties with regards to things like the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, etc. which ARE erosions of our rights, and they are OK with that because it "Protecks dis kuntry from der terrerists!" Yet as soon as gun rights are mentioned, suddenly they are inflexible strict constructionists.

Bit of a dichotomy, don't you think?

-Arlos

[ClakarEQ]

since when does the supreme count have to ratify original articles of the consitution?

not speaking for anyone else but I am just as adamite about any loss of personal freedoms

I don't have the answer but without ratification, it can be "better understood" to what the constitution was meant to mean.

We have several instances already where you are not free to speak your mind (ala hate crimes), you are not free to have privacy where the folks in charge (ala majority) feel you shouldn't.

Back to that other statement I made, "Do you really think the founding fathers meant to arm an unorganized chaos-run civilian populace". Personally I do not think this was the intent. I think it was meant to have our government embrace malitias and actually facilitate some level of organization. I link it to how police "deputize" folks on a temporary basis or something to help through an emergency just in a grander scale.

EDIT

Better yet, aren't the police armed civilians? Are they not here to protect the people unlike the military whom are here to protect our country? This alone could be what the constitution meant by right to bear arms.

[Minrott]

First I come back and no one posts for 3 weeks and I think the board is dead. Then you guys pull three pages of this on me?

Man.

Anyway.

I listened to the hearing on CSPAN right after it concluded. I swear, probably the greatest thing I've ever heard in my life was Justice Scalia verbally bitchslapping the DC lawyer. If I hadn't known better, I would have thought he was cold cocking him for punctuation. Then, once his position was utterly destroyed, he attempted to sit down and Justice Kennedy said, "Hold on there sucker, I want a few licks" and picked him back up. It was like listening to a play by play of a WWE match.

Seriously, my heart swelled.

If there's one thing I'll thank George Bush for, it's Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Thanks George!

6-3 decision in our favor. Our being yours, and mine. The citizens of this country.

Want to really boil your hat on something? Lets have a little comparison.

In 1976 DC enacted a ban on handgun ownership. This ban grandfathered pre-76 handguns, but handguns purchased post-76 would have to be licensed by DC. DC refused to license any handgun for any civilian, therefore created a defacto ban on a whole type of weapon.

The Justices sounded as if they were adamantly opposed to any ban on a whole type of firearm, defacto or not.

In 1986 Congress added 922(o) to the Firearm Owner Protection Act. This little addendum prohibited the BATFE from accepting any more registration forms for post-86 machine guns for civilian use. Pre-86 machine guns were still allowed, however by not issuing any more registration tax stamps, they created a defacto ban on machine guns for civilian use (by the way, per the BATFE registry of civilian owned, legally tranferable machine guns, there are over 190,000 in the US, and since 1939 only one has been used in a crime, and was used by an ex-police officer.)

See any similarities?

Heller vs DC will have no effect on 922(o) in it's own right, however will set a precedence against complete bans of any "whole type" of firearm. Thereby opening the door for patriotic Americans to sue the BATFE for not approving Form 1's and Form 4's for new machine guns.

That's about the time I expect Lyion to just pop.

Also, if anyone was inclined to listen to the arguments, at least 5 of the Justices agreed that the second amendment was there to guarantee the rights of individual American citizens to own and possess the standard military weapons of the day, the weapons they would be expected to use if called into service of the militia.

So posture all you like, elect Obama, let Fienstien and Schumer and Pelosi loose. Because the court is on our side, and I'm extremely confident that our freedoms will be protected in the future.

The Second is the only thing protecting the First.

Arlos, could you please define military grade for me?

Is it a level of quality in manufacturing?

Is it a summation of function?

Is it a standard of caliber or power?

Is it an appearance? (as Congress apparently believes)

By the way, the Military submitted a brief to the court for Heller. It stated that it believed the purpose of the 2nd was to guarantee the right of the citizenry to own firearms of military nature, and that handguns (being the only type of guns pertaining to the case) were military in nature, that they're issued to many soldiers for many reasons. Their position stating that having a populace trained with weapons they may be issued raises our nations level of readiness should the militia ever be called.

[Minrott]

He has a point in one thing though. How many people even on here (Hi lueyen!) have argued positions that accepted loss of civil liberties with regards to things like the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, etc. which ARE erosions of our rights, and they are OK with that because it "Protecks dis kuntry from der terrerists!" Yet as soon as gun rights are mentioned, suddenly they are inflexible strict constructionists.

Bit of a dichotomy, don't you think?

-Arlos

Not me. I'm anti all of that.

Anyone who would trade liberty for the guise of security is a fuckhole.

[Tikker]

I just don't understand you gun lovers, heh

[brinstar]

machine guns: for when you need to kill a fucking lot of deer in a really short time


be a man, use a spear

[Minrott]

I have yet to see hunting enumerated anywhere in the Bill of Rights.


Look at the bright side Brinstar. This is the same way the federal ban on weed works. Perhaps this will work in your favor, even though it's not a constitutional right.

[brinstar]

hehe a) i was joking, and b) i don't smoke weed anymore