The US Constitution (not the ship)

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by savage560

Good point, at that, & yes it can be revised to meet current mores of society, & to keep up with the times.The times have changed monumentally in 200+ years!GD ,it was written over 200 years ago.Many here ,there & every where seem to think the "Gods" wrote this document, but lets be brutally honest, they were men with flaws as all are.

Mormons believe the Constitution was divinely inspired, some that its even a sort of scripture.

Originally Posted by savage560

Why have a document so vague that it is constantly subject to interpretations by at one time, a conservative controlled USSC & other times a super liberal USSC?Like a prime example ,the 14th. amendment. Lets spell the GD thing out to clarify it

Disagree here. The Constitution is not an "operating manual". Its not supposed to spell out every detail, under all circumstances. What you take to be "vague" is purposeful. If you look at the 14th Amendment, the practical meaning of a phrase like "equal protection under the law" is understood through the many cases that have moved through the Courts in the succeeding 150 years. If they tried to "spell it out", it would have been hundreds of pages, and still would have missed things we think are important

Originally Posted by savage560

Times have also changed since the 2nd was passed, we can spell that one out too.

They were clear. The 2nd Amendment explicitly tells us what its about-- that a "well regulated militia" cannot be disarmed by the Federal Government. It says nothing about ownership of firearms for a personal right of self defense.

It doesn't need to be "spelled out"-- just read as it was written, without editing (note that gun fanciers who proclaim their devotion to the 2nd Amendment manifest that devotion by ignoring half of the sentence . . . they like to do some editing and leave out the bit about the Militia.) Read the whole sentence and there's no mystery.

[savage560]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Mormons believe the Constitution was divinely inspired, some that its even a sort of scripture.



Disagree here. The Constitution is not an "operating manual". Its not supposed to spell out every detail, under all circumstances. What you take to be "vague" is purposeful. If you look at the 14th Amendment, the practical meaning of a phrase like "equal protection under the law" is understood through the many cases that have moved through the Courts in the succeeding 150 years. If they tried to "spell it out", it would have been hundreds of pages, and still would have missed things we think are important



They were clear. The 2nd Amendment explicitly tells us what its about-- that a "well regulated militia" cannot be disarmed by the Federal Government. It says nothing about ownership of firearms for a personal right of self defense.

It doesn't need to be "spelled out"-- just read as it was written, without editing (note that gun fanciers who proclaim their devotion to the 2nd Amendment manifest that devotion by ignoring half of the sentence . . . they like to do some editing and leave out the bit about the Militia.) Read the whole sentence and there's no mystery.

Well this again is one man's opine. Just IMHO, it could save a lot of grief, & devise strife, if we can clarify things, in the document. Like the right to citizenship,for example & the right to bear arms, & what kind of arms that a citizen can possess to protect his or hers from illegal transgressions of bodily harm, or home invasion.The FFs had no way of understanding this, in todays terms, & real problems.Just that simple, to avoid one group stating its this or that & another stating a vague reference does not mean this or that.We waste precious time & resources on issues like this , that could be made law of the land by that document & then we could more on to more pressing problems in this modern nation.

Problems that are so numerous & monumentally important & neglected, we have a showman billionaire, as the only one who can point out this nations true problems, that is the only one who speaks common sense from the party he represents, to this nations MC of tax payers.That's why he was elected the candidate from that party.On the flip side we have a woman who is a total insider & political hack, & wants the status quo to continue to solve this nations problems by taking advantage of the US Constitutions vague 14th amendment, for only one example.Her solution to all problems here seems to be continuing the spending, that is out of control, & flooding the nation with immigrants that have no means , proven by statistics, to ever find employment , in this nation, to stay off those who pay their way for them.The MC tax payers as their main source of income.

No its not a user manual, but if one can stand progress & not say any change is not good, hell anything including this document can be , lets be brutally honest , changed to meet the demands of a nation that is so vastly different from the way it looked 200+ years ago, is a step toward progress..

Progress is hard to digest for some, but we'll bring those who will not face its reality by them kicking & screaming to the inevitable, if need be.Again just MO & I think I'm not the only one in the "class room " who believes this, is inevitable?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by savage560

Well this again is one man's opine. Just IMHO, it could save a lot of grief, & devise strife, if we can clarify things, in the document. Like the right to citizenship,for example & the right to bear arms, & what kind of arms that a citizen can possess to protect his or hers from illegal transgressions of bodily harm, or home invasion.The FFs had no way of understanding this, in todays terms, & real problems.

The FF's said nothing at all about a personal right to weapons, neither does the 2nd Amendment. We can pass laws permitting folks to own and carry weapons. Or we can pass laws to ban it. Gun fanciers choose not to read the 2nd Amendment in toto, and so make a claim that there's some personal right to weapons for self defense-- but it doesn't say that.

Again, a Constitution can't be an "operating manual".

The "operating manual" of government is the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws, regulations, and court decisions that explain just how a patent is approved.

The Constitution has a principle:

Originally Posted by Article I, Section 8

"Congress shall have power... to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

That was exactly right, IMO. They don't say whether a patent should be for 5 years or 15; all of the details of our patent system are in the laws, regulations, and caselaw. These are in the many thousands of pages, and change all the time.

What the Constitution has, is the principle.

That's all a Constitution can have.

Sometimes, you do have to amend the Constitution -- for example, the Constitution clearly permitted slavery. You could have gotten rid of slavery by simply passing laws in all the states, if they'd been willing. But that wouldn't have changed the principle that it was permitted.

Another thing that would require an Amendment: let's say we wanted to make it easier to amend the Constitution-- that could only be done with an Amendment to it.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The FF's said nothing at all about a personal right to weapons, neither does the 2nd Amendment. We can pass laws permitting folks to own and carry weapons. Or we can pass laws to ban it. Gun fanciers choose not to read the 2nd Amendment in toto, and so make a claim that there's some personal right to weapons for self defense-- but it doesn't say that.

Ugh ... you obviously haven't read what the Founders actually said, and why it's written that way!

The first 8 articles of the Bill of Rights are about individual rights that preserve the free society as a whole!

The 2nd Amendment is about the individual right to bear arms and assemble into a militia ... just like the 1st Amendment is the individual right to free speech and assemble into a free press. If you knew anything about history, you'd know this. The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st Amendment, was purposely and specifically written that way for the that exact reason! Read up Madison, Franklin and others!

Because the British claimed Americans had the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, but refused to let Americans assemble into anything that the crown didn't authorize. So ... how do you keep society free if you cannot exercise your individual right to assemble into anything against the state? Do you really think you, as a single person, will 'stop' the state, like the crown? This is honestly why they used to teach civics in schools, sigh.

The fact that the individual right and its assembly into a larger group -- not defined by the state -- are the total, required balance to remain free!

That's why when the President started tapping the AP phones to go after Fox News in 2009 before even the alleged Korean intelligent leak, most of the press as a whole was pissed off. Because the President does not get to right -- any more than the crown -- to define a free press ... only individuals who assemble as that press do!

Just like the President does not get to define a militia, which despite popular assumption, is not the individual, state controlled national guard. It is the individual right of people to freely assemble into a militia, because it is only guaranteed by the individual right to bear arms.

The whole fucking purpose is right there and you're looking at it!

The state does not get to define a militia and more than a press! And the only way to guarantee that is via individual rights, including to take them and assemble as a group!

But okay, just keep telling all the Founders that repeatedly pointed this fact out, that the 2nd Amendment was the only one of the first 8 that isn't about individual rights. Yeah, okay.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Again, a Constitution can't be an "operating manual".

The "operating manual" of government is the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws, regulations, and court decisions that explain just how a patent is approved.

The Constitution has a principle:

That was exactly right, IMO. They don't say whether a patent should be for 5 years or 15; all of the details of our patent system are in the laws, regulations, and caselaw. These are in the many thousands of pages, and change all the time.

What the Constitution has, is the principle.

That's all a Constitution can have.

Sometimes, you do have to amend the Constitution -- for example, the Constitution clearly permitted slavery. You could have gotten rid of slavery by simply passing laws in all the states, if they'd been willing. But that wouldn't have changed the principle that it was permitted.

Another thing that would require an Amendment: let's say we wanted to make it easier to amend the Constitution-- that could only be done with an Amendment to it.

The US Constitution and its Amendment process is simply this ...

These are the articles that can only be changed or overturned by a supermajority of the people via their states. When people stop to realize this, they will understand the obviousness of the truth.

Right now, in the US, a supermajority of Americans believe in both the right of self-defense with a firearm and the right of a woman to choose for her body. Because of this, the left-wingers and right-wingers, respectively, who have been spewing the same rhetoric since the sensationalist media of the '70s, cannot get them overturned. Not only can they not get a supermajority, but they cannot even get a simple majority!

So ... they use logic, they scheme, to change people's minds, just enough to get laws passed. They use phrases like 'Gun Safety' and 'Public Health,' to push things that cause people to agree, without going into detail. They have waiting periods, government lists of purchasers/aborters, even try to say things that are physically impossible, but people will believe.

Like that a civilian AR-15 is a weapon of war, even though it takes 45+ seconds to empty a magazine, and not only 4-6 seconds. This makes semi-automatic weapons virtually no faster than a bolt action weapon, which is then the next target. It's not long before all 'assault weapons' going back to the 18th century are outlawed, even ones that were invented in the time of the Founding Fathers. Yes, there were more than just muskets in their lifetimes!!!

Even the New York Supreme Court is taking great issue with the total criminalization of 95% of gun owners, and how much the State legislature is trying to hide that fact, and the reality that they cannot even exercise the right.

Furthermore, when the 'Assault Weapons Ban' sunset because it did nothing, the "Gun Safety" lobby started getting an army of lawyers to sue gun manufacturers. As Bernie Sanders pointed out, it was the end of gun manufacturing in America, because not even big gun manufacturers -- the one with federal and state contracts -- could not take more than 1-2 lawsuit-appeals before they were bankrupt, while the grassroots mom'n pop gunsmith were fucked overnight. The law was specifically passed after one gun manufacturer nearly went out of business just on the first appeal, and settled what it could afford, even when the courts repeatedly ruled there was no proof of any complicity. The law only covers when there is not complicity, and yes, there have been lawsuits when there has been such.

Just like the abortion clinic has to be a fully staffed medical hospital, and not an outpatient clinic, even though the rate of complications are far lower than a crapload of outpatient procedures done outside of hospitals. Now the clincs are few, and difficult to locate, unsustainable and go out of business. Women are unable to have abortions at all. Even the split US Supreme Court agreed this was the reality, and why the law essentially prevent the right from being exercised.

In both cases ... they haven't been 'totally outlawed,' they just become impossible to exercise.

And in both cases ... it's not about limiting a right, it's about outlawing it without getting a supermajority of Americans to agree.

Which is why it's textbook totalitarian attitude ... the end justifies the means, civics and the people be fucked. And that's why anyone who goes there and justifies it is totally against freedom. It's all about 'we must' and 'any way possible.'

The exact same and direct issue the framers of this country had with the British from 1770-1775!

This is literally raping civil rights in this country ... justifying it with extremely questionable arguments, because a supermajority of Americans won't agree with you.

Just like the 'no fly list,' let alone 'terrorist watch list,' really pisses every freedom loving American the fuck off right now. It's a 'turn in your neighbor list' that is destroying now millions of families, and making it extremely difficult to track legitimate threats.

Even the Huffington Post, an extremely left-wing news outlet, has been trying to tell 'Progessives' they are pretty much fucked up to keep pushing the lists as if they are remotely useful and respectful civil liberties -- having nothing to do with guns at all.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b071ec19eebbdf

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by profvolup

The 2nd Amendment is about the individual right to bear arms and assemble into a militia

Nope. It doesn't say that. The founders could have said that, but they didn't

The Constitution itself makes the President the commander of the Militia, and Congress responsible for its regulation. Again, gun fanciers get their entire theory by reading one half of one sentence of the 2nd Amendment; "honoring" the Constitution by ignoring what it says, and ignoring how the Founders themselves understood it.

At the same time that they pass the 2nd Amendment, they pass the Militia Acts, which is very specific about who the members of the Militia are, and what weapons members of the Militia are to keep against the possibility that they may be called into service.

Originally Posted by Militia Act of 1792

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

This is not a gun fanciers arming themselves willy-nilly-- this is a "well regulated Militia", equipping themselves for military service . . . specified people buying specified weapons for national service, nothing "individual" about it at all.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Nope. It doesn't say that. The founders could have said that, but they didn't

No, the founders said exactly that! That's why they wrote the 2nd Amendment how it reads, just like the 1st Amendment.

That's why the SCOTUS debates whether an Amendment should mean what it meant when it was written, or what they want to interpret now. Because no one -- especially anyone who has read Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, et al. -- ever says otherwise!

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The Constitution itself makes the President the commander of the Militia, and Congress responsible for its regulation.

Fuck man, we are fucked if you think that!

First off ...

Ask all 50 governors of the states of the United States if their federally trained reserves, let alone even the state militias before that, answer to the President of the United States?

The permanent, federal military is only a recent development. In fact, if you look at when the origins of the modern ogliarchy started in the US -- the early 20th century -- you see many things come together ...

Exponentially raised federal income combined with a draft and other things.

Second ...

Understand also that the federally trained reserves forces are not militia either, even if they operate as state militia. Reserves are federally trained and maintained, not state trained and maintained. That's a huge difference.

Third ...

Militia can and have always existed in the US without even state authority. How? The individual right to assemble into a militia. Seriously, go look it up.

People who think militias cannot exist if they are not ordained by the state are really fucked up. And you know who thinks that? Local and state law enforcement! Why? Because militias fucking maintain control when the shit hits the fan.

Militias are who law enforcement rely on -- not the National Guard -- but local militias. I cannot stress this enough, being in disaster areas. The difference between people getting killed and women getting raped in a disaster area is the existence of militias.

You will learn this the first time you're in a disaster and local and state law enforcement is overwhelmed. The problem is that the US media has painted militias as vigilantes. They are not. They never have been. Vigilantes are criminals.

Heck, what really pissed off a lot of militias recently is when a subset of a Nevada militia went to Oregon. It was an Oregon issue for Oregonians, not a subset of Nevadians and people involved with their totally separate (and more questionable) struggle. Even today those of the Sagebrush Rebellions work local, including with local representatives. Yes, if you actually stop to talk to people in a militia, they really take their ~300 year history very seriously.

They are not the idiots the US media loves to put on TV. You can always find those in any group.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Again, gun fanciers get their entire theory by reading one half of one sentence of the 2nd Amendment; "honoring" the Constitution by ignoring what it says

First off, the 'Bill of Rights' was not written by representatives and the Continental Congress representatives.

Secondly, even the extremely 'conservative' (for the period) Federalist Party would never say what you said, and there are countless writings from their members that would be at total odds with 'your interpretation.' Heck, the modern Federalist Society started precisely because of people like you -- in the post-1970's "sensationalist media" -- and quite under-read from the era, started putting words in the mouth's of the Founding Fathers ... often at great odds from what they actually said and wrote!

Originally Posted by deepsepia

and ignoring how the Founders themselves understood it.

You are so under-read on this, it's sickening. Start with the Federalist Papers, and move from there. Let the Founding Father's own words point out the obviousness of the truth.

Even the Anti-Federalist Papers did not debate the views of the Federalist, but their implements, and how things like a 'Bill of Rights' would end up being the only rights guaranteed, and then possibly 'limited' over time, until they couldn't be exercised.

This is the biggest load of US media sensationalist BS logic that I'm honestly tired of seeing.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

At the same time that they pass the 2nd Amendment, they pass the Militia Acts, which is very specific about who the members of the Militia are, and what weapons members of the Militia are to keep against the possibility that they may be called into service.

Do you even know your history? The militias existed, both local assembly without authority, as well as the state's own ... and that continues today.

All the Militia Acts did was give the President the ability to ask state governors to put their state militias under the command of the President. And that is still the case today! Why did it come about? Had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

It was because of the Wabash River bloodbath.

It was then used just 2 years later, and is still questioned and debated today, to put down the Whiskey Insurrection -- which Thomas Jefferson predicted would happen as a result of Alexander Hamiliton's 'centralized bank' and focusing on credit and control -- on whether or not the federal government has the right to do many things.

Seriously dude ... it was not passed with the 2nd Amendment.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

This is not a gun fanciers arming themselves willy-nilly-- this is a "well regulated Militia", equipping themselves for military service . . . specified people buying specified weapons for national service, nothing "individual" about it at all.

This is honestly the biggest and ultimate load of bullshit I've ever read. You couldn't find a single Justice on the Supreme Court that would argue the Founders wrote it that way.

They argue on whether or not the 2nd Amendment must be interpreted based on when it was written. Because if you base it on when the Founders wrote it, and everything written at the time by them ... dude, this just showcases how poorly read you are.

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Its always amusing to me that 2nd Amendment fans, despite their purported devotion to it, can't be troubled to cite the full text.

Here's what the 2nd Amendment says:

"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."


Didja notice that in order to make your point, you leave out the first half of the sentence? A common oversight amongst the gun fanciers, for the obvious reason that they don't like what the 2nd Amendment actually says. Instead, they'd like to edit it down . . .

Here's another logic puzzler for you: "Can we extract clauses from sentences in the Constitution (or indeed, in any law) and then claim that we can read these few words divorced from the sentence in which it was embedded?"

If the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment wanted to speak of a right of individuals to possess weapons for self defense, they could have said so.

But that's not what they said, did they?

Didja notice how Anti-second amendment irrational gun hating kooks only want to talk about the pre-amble (the first part) and ignore the clear language of the second part.


The fact is that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." is a preamble not a qualifier and therfore does not carry the weight of law. Unfortunately the use of preambles were far, far more common back when the constitution was written then they are now.

Even if it were the framers intent (it clearly wasn't) to make it a collective right it should also be pointed out that at the time it was written every white male over 15 years was expected to participate in the defense of the state (The Militia) which would effectively make it an individual right at that time.

You wrote:
If the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment wanted to speak of a right of individuals to possess weapons for self defense, they could have said so.

They did.
"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."

If the intent was to infer a collective right to form an armed militia why didn't they write the right of the people to form a militia shall not be infringed?

On it's face the Second Amendment clearly grants an individual right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunate for anti-gun/anti-2nd/anti-self defense crowd there are plenty of writings by the Framers including Maddison that make it clear they intended the 2nd to be an individual right.

[Rogerbh]

This Senate report from February 1982 agrees with the pro gunners.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

It concludes:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

Regarding individual rights and firearms as well as the definition of the militia, it states:

Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights—as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment. As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.
That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia".65 This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 311(a).

That law states:

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Combine the above with the Supreme Court in Heller, this makes a convincing argument which side is right regarding the 2nd Amendment.

This is the third thread that I have posted this info on and I am sure I will be posting it on further threads as each side will not change their opinions.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Faceman675

Didja notice how Anti-second amendment irrational gun hating kooks only want to talk about the pre-amble (the first part) and ignore the clear language of the second part..

No, that's false. I cite the entire 2nd Amendment, unlike the NRA and the gun fanciers. Its one sentence, there are no "parts", just two clauses. I cite both, gun fanciers prefer to do some editing.

And I'm not "anti-2nd Amendment"

I'm anti "doing your own editing of the 2nd Amendment". Gun fanciers have invented the fiction that their edited version of the 2nd Amendment is "the truth", but its easy enough to see the bad faith and bad logic in omitting half of a very short sentence to change its meaning.

Read the whole thing, understand what the Militia was, and that the prospect of the Federal Government disarming the Militias (which belonged to the States, but which was under Federal command) was a real and practical concern at the time, and you understand what the 2nd Amendment is about. I'm entirely supportive of that.

What I'm "anti" is editing the 2nd Amendment and then claiming that its about the personal right to a firearm, when it plainly wasn't.

Once again, the folks who wrote it could have said "Every person has a right to own a weapon for his own defense".

They could have said that; but it ain't what they said.