Quote :

"I mean, if I were to follow your argument then it would mean that people would be walking down the streets of Tokyo with katana's slicing people's arms off because they *needed* to have a weapon to take advantage of people with. "

Ask and ye shall receive: http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=506196

in summary, the UK is banning swords because people were doing just that. Since the implementation of a ban on handguns, knife crime has sky rocketed.

Quote :

"Instead the case is that the criminal element has the weapons and has formed something akin to the mob and they work very hard to stay out of the public eye."

So it's preferable to have a mafia and an unarmed public than to allow the public the right and capability to defend themselves?

Going back to the original, question, I don't see what rubber bullets would change about the amendment. The purpose was to assert the right of the people to defend themselves from enemies foreign and domestic. Mandating only rubber bullets would violate the spirit of the amendment if not the letter. Furthermore, reloading is not that hard, so all you would do is generate a massive black market for real bullets.

And about the militia part. For the sake of argument, allow me to grant you the assumption that it's a restrictive clause. Let us see what the militia is:

Quote :

"TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes (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."

So if we grant that it's a restrictive clause, the second amendment still affirms the rights of all able bodied men age 17-45 (64 in some cases) and all women who are members of the national guard the right to bear arms.

Interestingly, by reading the amendment with your interpretation, you effectively make the amendment discriminate on gender and age, thus making it not a right of the people, but of a subset of the people.

12/31/2007 3:35:59 PM

From the same thread

Quote :

"a total of six (6) people have died from these things in a 5-year period."

And then:

Quote :

" So it's preferable to have a mafia and an unarmed public than to allow the public the right and capability to defend themselves?"

Yes, the public generally has less to do with a mob-like organization than say - gangs or common thugs. Crime syndicates generally don't commit petty crimes and go for bigger bucks. So yes, I'd rather have them than gang wars.

12/31/2007 3:41:03 PM

Quote :

"So yes, I'd rather have them than gang wars."

I'd rather solve the problem of people trying to attack me in the first place.

12/31/2007 3:57:49 PM

I don't think your libertarian utopia can ever exist unless you want to placate people via drugs a la 'Equilibrium.'

12/31/2007 4:01:21 PM

Quote :

"Guns are accidents waiting to happen and only well-qualified and intelligent people should have them."

Too bad the Constitution says otherwise.

Quote :

"The second amendment establishes a collective right to arms, but not an individual right. "

Oh really? Where are The People's tanks? Where are The People's missiles? Seems to me that the "collective right" has been taken away from us as well. But please, what the hell is a "collective right?" Does that mean that the right to vote is a "collective right?" As long as most people can vote, then it's all good, right?

Quote :

"The fact that many countries have safe, civil societies with very restrictive gun laws shows that this "right" is neither universal or inalienable."

It's too bad that our Constitution says otherwise

Quote :

"As for the "shall not be infringed", it seems our society is willing to put some infringements on the so called "right", particularly on the type or capacities of weapons."

It also seems that our society is willing to piss on property rights. Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it Constitutional.

Quote :

"Much as slavery showed the founding fathers weren't as enlightened as everyone would have you believe."

Are you that fucking stupid? The founding fathers made NO statement in the Constitution as to whether or not slavery was noble. They simply acknowledged that it existed.

Quote :

"You ignored my large weapon clause."

You ignored the "2nd Amendment" clause. thanks.

12/31/2007 6:36:40 PM

Quote :

"The founders obviously intended the right to bear arms under the context of being able to raise an army. I don't see how how individual gun ownership could be construed under the pretext of "a well regulated milita". Joe Public with a handgun is hardly well regulated."

Whats the point of writing an amendment saying "oh by the way our army can have guns"?
and if so, how come every other amendment in the bill of rights (1,3-10) are individual rights except the second?

1/1/2008 11:30:03 AM

Quote :

"Too bad the Constitution says otherwise."

Whether the Constitution says it or not is not the argument. The constitution can be changed and thus is a fallible document by its own admission.

So quit acting like it's the holy grail because you just make yourself look like a moron.

1/1/2008 12:45:40 PM

Ok, so why is the right to self defense not a right of an individual?

1/1/2008 1:04:06 PM

Quote :

"Whether the Constitution says it or not is not the argument. The constitution can be changed and thus is a fallible document by its own admission."

I don't recall any amendments that say that the right to bear arms can be infringed upon. Contrary to what Congress may think, it CAN NOT write laws that are against the Constitution. Well, that's how it's supposed to be, but who gives a fuck about a rotting piece of paper that happens to be the foundation of our government, right?

1/1/2008 1:11:43 PM

^

1/1/2008 3:28:39 PM

Quote :

"Well, that's how it's supposed to be, but who gives a fuck about a rotting piece of paper that happens to be the foundation of our government, right?"

If your thought capacity is limited by a 200+ year old document then there really is no room for debate and you're wasting everyone who wants a real discussions time with your limited thought capacity.

1/2/2008 9:39:37 AM

^
How does the Constitution limit thought capacity?

1/2/2008 11:03:26 AM

My, yes - how constraining to be so hidebound to a system of written laws instead of say, just enforcing whatever spoken dictates Our Dear Leaders decide to put forth. Especially when it's so very important to change said ratty document, all it takes is a properly passes amendment - but how tedious is that? Why can't we just ignore fundamental laws when it suits us?

1/2/2008 1:47:24 PM

Obviously you have poor reading comprehension. Let me spell it out so that someone with a 4th grade reading level should be able to understand.

We were talking about weapons and how they are dangerous if used by bad people, or improperly. We agreed that this was a bad thing. We were discussing ways to save lives. We agreed that people with weapons are more likely to hurt someone than people without weapons. If you always say 'but the constitution says this' then you say the constitution is perfect. The constitution isn't perfect because it can be changed. The second amendment can be changed and therefore is also not perfect. People that say 'but the 2nd amendment says this' to every discussion on gun rights apparently can't think for themselves.




That clear enough for you?


edit: Look, I'm not saying the constitution sucks or that we should ignore it, I'm simply making the argument that we shouldn't restrain OUR arguments on the subject to the 2nd amendment because the 2nd amendment was designed for a different day and age and it's extremely stupid to pretend otherwise. We're talking about guns and society not about your right to suck the constitutions dick.

[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2008 1:56:58 PM

Quote :

"edit: Look, I'm not saying the constitution sucks or that we should ignore it, I'm simply making the argument that we shouldn't restrain OUR arguments on the subject to the 2nd amendment because the 2nd amendment was designed for a different day and age and it's extremely stupid to pretend otherwise. We're talking about guns and society not about your right to suck the constitutions dick."

Great, then argue that. That's at least a defensible position. Argue that the Second Amendment should be removed, and therefore our discussion should keep that in mind. Argue that it's no longer a fundamental right on par with speech and search & seizure, and argue that our legal framework should reflect this. It's a much more sound position to argue from than just saying, "You're stupid for invoking the 2nd Amendment." That's kind of like saying, "You're stupid for invoking the first Amendment" in a free speech case.


[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ^]

1/2/2008 2:00:47 PM

Actually I was referring to earthdogg and aaronburro (basically the batshit libertarians). You seem to be rather well adjusted and rational.

My bad for the lack of ^'s

1/2/2008 2:03:43 PM

Quote :

"Great, then argue that. That's at least a defensible position. Argue that the Second Amendment should be removed, and therefore our discussion should keep that in mind. Argue that it's no longer a fundamental right on par with speech and search & seizure, and argue that our legal framework should reflect this. It's a much more sound position to argue from than just saying, "You're stupid for invoking the 2nd Amendment." That's kind of like saying, "You're stupid for invoking the first Amendment" in a free speech case."

Congratulations on trying to misrepresent my position. I merely said the amendment was outdated, I never claimed I didn't believe in the general purpose behind it (which, I believe, is to enable the populace to defend themselves from the government, NOT run around like modern day cowboys with concealed weapons).

I think it's entirely possible to update the amendment in an intelligent manner.

1/2/2008 4:52:57 PM

Well wonderful then. Run with it. Petty details aside, my point stands - it's a far more defensible position to argue that the Second Amendment should be rewritten and clarified in a modern context than to decry it as simply being irrelevant.

1/2/2008 5:07:25 PM

Quote :

"If your thought capacity is limited by a 200+ year old document then there really is no room for debate and you're wasting everyone who wants a real discussions time with your limited thought capacity."

I'll reiterate this, because it is perfect:

Quote :

"My, yes - how constraining to be so hidebound to a system of written laws instead of say, just enforcing whatever spoken dictates Our Dear Leaders decide to put forth."

Quote :

"If you always say 'but the constitution says this' then you say the constitution is perfect."

This would be what we call a "strawman."

Quote :

"Look, I'm not saying the constitution sucks or that we should ignore it, I'm simply making the argument that we shouldn't restrain OUR arguments on the subject to the 2nd amendment because the 2nd amendment was designed for a different day and age and it's extremely stupid to pretend otherwise."

I can certainly agree that the 2nd Amendment was written in a different day and age, but I would certainly NOT argue that it was designed for a different day and age.

Quote :

"Congratulations on trying to misrepresent my position. I merely said the amendment was outdated, I never claimed I didn't believe in the general purpose behind it ..."

How, exactly, can you say this when you previously said that it was designed for a different day and age. Wouldn't that almost certainly imply that it is outdated? After all, if you think that the "different day and age" is in the future, then it wouldn't exactly make sense that you would want to get rid of it before it was useful, right? And, of course, it a "different day and age" can't mean "right now," otherwise it wouldn't "different," now would it? So when, pray tell, would this "different day and age" be? If you say "past," then how does not imply that you said the 2nd Amendment is "outdated?"

And then, you follow up the misrepresentation of your words w/ this beauty:

Quote :

"... (which, I believe, is to enable the populace to defend themselves from the government, NOT run around like modern day cowboys with concealed weapons). I think it's entirely possible to update the amendment in an intelligent manner."

Tell me, do you really think the populace can defend themselves with a pistol and shotgun from a government which has tanks, artillery, machine guns, aircraft, and all other manner of killing machines? REALLY, how defensible a position is that? It seems to me that the best solution would be wording that allows for the American citizen to also own tanks, artillery, hell, at least machine guns, if you think the purpose is to allow citizens to defend themselves against the government. And, frankly, if that is case (i realize, that is absolutely a potential strawman), then tell me why "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't work for your purposes?

You make fierce appeals to the notion that weapons are out of control and that this is likely to blame for violent crime in America (reference your comment about "modern day cowboys with concealed weapons"). However, wouldn't an increase in crime be more likely a result of inadequate law-enforcement or an inadequate criminal justice system? Or, at the very least, wouldn't you think it prudent to try and fix a problem with violent crime at those levels first, before you go trying to "fix it" by revising Constitutionally protected rights? At the very least, you have to agree that the government has shown itself to be fairly ineffective at curtailing violent crime (warning, another potential strawman), and, based on that, it would seem ludicrous to me to deny to law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves when the gov't has proven ineffective.

No, I think it makes far more sense to preserve Constitutionally protected rights. I think it makes an incredible amount of sense to preserve the right to keep and bear arms, especially from the standpoint of allowing the populace to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical government. Where I think you are going wrong, though, is in assuming that the Constitutional position (call it Libertarian, if you want, but I prefer Constitutional) says that people can run around willy nilly with guns, blowing people away will mortars and machine guns for no reason and for there to be no consequences. That is absolutely the last thing I would argue. I absolutely think someone who commits a crime using a weapon should be punished. I think that anyone who commits a crime, weapon or not, should be punished. Arguably, what we all want is responsible use of weapons. And I think that the best way to encourage responsible ownership and use of weapons is to punish the irresponsible use of weapons.

Moreover, I think it is a mistake to assume that a person can't be held liable for his use of a Constitutional right. A perfect example is the hackneyed case of "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre." Does a man have a right to do that? Absolutely! BUT, he is also responsible for the outcome of his use of that right. If someone dies or gets maimed in a stampede due to the guy yelling "fire," then is not that man responsible? BUT, the man isn't guilty of using free speech, he is guilty of causing a stampede which injured someone, and the EVIDENCE of this could be that the man yelled "fire," coupled with the fact that there was no fire. Likewise, just because a man owns a rifle doesn't make him culpable for the shooting death of someone else. But, the fact that the man owns a rifle whose barrel markings match the markings of a bullet pulled from the corpse of a shooting victim would certainly be evidence that the man committed the crime.

Ultimately, I believe that rights are things that we should not be eager to take away from people. Rather, we should preserve our rights, and punish those who abuse them.

1/2/2008 9:40:31 PM

Quote :

"I think it's entirely possible to update the amendment in an intelligent manner. "

Interesting. Just how would you re-word the 2nd Amendment?

If I understand it, your goal is to save lives by reducing weapon ownership. People with weapons are more likely to hurt each other.

So if you could re-write it and have it pass automatically into law...what would it say?

Hopefully you will keep some of the intention of the original Amendment in there somewhere. It's interesting that the Federalists thought adding a Bill of Rights was unecessary and redundant. They claimed that the Constitution clearly implied all the the rights that the Anti-Federalists clamerored for.

After living under a tyranny for so long, the Founders really wanted to make sure there was an "out" if the newly formed union got out of hand. If they recognized our right to defend ourselves against a group of harm-causers (the gov't), why wouldn't you conclude that the 2nd Amendment also included the right to defend yourself against individual harm-causers (those trying to kill you or steal your hard-earned belongings).

But aside that, I invite you to offer your amended 2nd amendment for discussion.

1/2/2008 11:29:25 PM

Quote :

"So if you could re-write it and have it pass automatically into law...what would it say?"

I'm not sure, I'm not *quite* pretentious enough to claim to be able to competently write a constitutional amendment by myself but I do think it needs clarifying/updating. I understand why some of the original founders didn't like the bill of rights, but I also believe that government, left to its own whims, tends to ignore those rights that aren't explicitly stated. I don't think there is much argument about that point though.

1/3/2008 8:49:01 AM

in addition to the previous counter arguments, scuba steve's premise is flawed because people can always make their own ammunition.

there is no way to implement his theoretical situation.

1/3/2008 8:54:23 AM

^^ but you are perfectly capable of determining that such an amendment is flawed or outdated

1/4/2008 3:20:28 PM

Are you saying there is no difference between being able to think critically and do research versus construct legalese without any actual law school background?

1/4/2008 3:28:49 PM

Scuba Steve

1/4/2008 11:28:20 PM

^^ lol you just owned yourself

1/5/2008 2:20:19 AM

Quote :

"Are you saying there is no difference between being able to think critically and do research versus construct legalese without any actual law school background?"

Why construct legalese? The constitution was written in very plain english, specifically so that everyone could understand it and it's implications, not just lawyers.

1/5/2008 1:22:54 PM

Quote :

" Why construct legalese? The constitution was written in very plain english, specifically so that everyone could understand it and it's implications, not just lawyers."

Yes, and we see that this has caused no confusion in our legal system whatsoever.

1/5/2008 3:00:31 PM

So, rather than get into a pissing match about the finer points about the robustness of legal language, could you perhaps broadly outline how you'd re-word such an amendment, with the explicit understanding that none of us here (to my knowledge) are professional lawyers?

1/5/2008 4:47:32 PM

^^ actually, the problem has been the lawyers and politicians trying to manipulate the words to mean whatever will give them the most power. If lawyers weren't such fucking SCUMBAGS to begin with, they wouldn't need to construct fancy wordings to protect themselves from other scumbags like themselves

1/5/2008 5:00:50 PM