SCOTUS to rule on 2nd Amendment

[History_Buff]

I truely can't see why machineguns are prohibited, given that clause.

It says they may bear arms. Nowhere does it says they can own whatever arms they want. I don't think the founders saw this as the unbridled right of farmers to own and fire cannons whenever they wanted.

But honestly, the 2nd Amendment was designed to create a population willing to fight various threats to the United States, domestic or international. With that in mind, I don't see how anyone could favor the 2nd Amendment and not some form of conscription.

 

[Ecofarm]

Instead of arguing what a more than 200 years old text written in archaic language really means or what the writer intended it to mean, why not changing it to something clear, that cannot be misunderstood and that reflects the opinion of most Americans?

We do exactly that, in SCOTUS decisions and amendments. I see no need to or benefit from changing the foundational text.

At least our constitution is not 1300 years old and unchanged, like some countries.

 

[sonorakitch]

It says they may bear arms. Nowhere does it says they can own whatever arms they want. I don't think the founders saw this as the unbridled right of farmers to own and fire cannons whenever they wanted.

Using the same logic, the 1st amendment wouldn't apply to scientologists.

Obviously reasonable regulation is good. However, the machine gun ban makes no sense. One can own a machine gun, with the proper federal tax stamp ($200 and a background check), but it has to be manufactured before 1986. Therefore, it makes machine guns prohibitively expensive for those you might want one. To obtain the federal tax stamp, a person is fingerprinted, checked thoroughly, and required to inform the ATF if the firearm is transported across state lines or if the registered owner moves. Theft is the only concern, and I don't know anybody who owns a machine gun and doesn't have it locked up in a vault.

But honestly, the 2nd Amendment was designed to create a population willing to fight various threats to the United States, domestic or international. With that in mind, I don't see how anyone could favor the 2nd Amendment and not some form of conscription.

Thanks for a lesson in our understanding of our bill of rights. But really, how can you assume that? Have you read the documents by the framers stating that? I'd love to see a link...

~Chris

 

[uppi]

We do exactly that, in SCOTUS decisions and amendments. I see no need to or benefit from changing the foundational text.

And a hypothetical more "liberal" SCOTUS in ten years might turn that "clarification" around, while a hypothetical more "conservative" SCOTUS might turn Roe v. Wade around. I don't get why the Americans let some very impotant decisions to be decided by some judges that are nominated by the government, usually not nominated for their excellent legal abilities, but for their political point of view.
It seems like "judical activism" is an inherent part of the system.

At least our constitution is not 1300 years old and unchanged, like some countries.

Who on earth has a 1300 years old, unchanged constitution?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

It seems like "judical activism" is an inherent part of the system.

And thank God it is!

Cleo

 

[Bugfatty300]

It says they may bear arms. Nowhere does it says they can own whatever arms they want. I don't think the founders saw this as the unbridled right of farmers to own and fire cannons whenever they wanted.

Except that farmers did own cannons at that time. It wasn't at all unusual. Infact it is still legal to own and fire them today. And it wasn't at all unusual for a civilian to own a warship or even a fleet of warships as well. Who do you think armed the military in times of war in the 1900s? The civilian armorers, thats who. In otherwords there was NO restriction what a person could own up until the 1930s.

If you consider the 2nd Amendment as a backup for national defense then why prohibit things like machineguns and cannons?

 

[Ecofarm]

And a hypothetical more "liberal" SCOTUS in ten years might turn that "clarification" around, while a hypothetical more "conservative" SCOTUS might turn Roe v. Wade around. I don't get why the Americans let some very impotant decisions to be decided by some judges that are nominated by the government, usually not nominated for their excellent legal abilities, but for their political point of view.
It seems like "judical activism" is an inherent part of the system.

Look man, US public opinion changes over time. Are we supposed to write a new constitution everytime we change something? Or should we write one now and say it can never be changed? Think practically, you are totally irrational on this point.

ps. I'm against judicial activism.

Who on earth has a 1300 years old, unchanged constitution?

Saudi Arabia is run according to a codified version of Shari'a (Islamic legislation) with the Quran declared to be the constitution and is therefore sometimes classified as theocratic, but it is officially and in political fact a hereditary monarchy, with the King wielding near-absolute power and the organs of official religion subservient to them, which is rather caesaropapism: a state structure in which the government ('Caesar') is also in control of the main religious institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Saudi_Arabia

 

[bhsup]

Look man, US public opinion changes over time. Are we supposed to write a new constitution everytime we change something? Or should we write one now and say it can never be changed?

We should keep the old one and only allow changes via the frakkin system setup to change it. Amendments. If there is not enough support for an amendment to pass, then the idea isn't worthy of consideration. It is as simple as that.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

If there is not enough support for an amendment to pass, then the idea isn't worthy of consideration. It is as simple as that.

Quoted for truth! Never mind random hypothetical situations!

 

[I'm Cleo!]

If there is not enough support for an amendment to pass, then the idea isn't worthy of consideration. It is as simple as that.

That's a fine viewpoint, but since that's really never been an operating principle of the government of the United States, for the last 200 years our political culture has developed around the idea that the Supreme Court interprets the constitutional text with an eye towards contemporary practices. Accordingly, Amendments are few and far between. We can't do anything about it now. American law is built on a foundation of hundreds of years of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution.

E.g., since Brown v. Board of Education is plainly at odds with the views of the Congress of 1868, which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, should we scrap it? We can't. Brown is part of our constitutional tradition now.

Cleo

 

[raketooy]

[...] the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[...] the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What would be needed to completely get rid of the 2nd Amendment? I'm sure it could be done without a revolution, right?

 

[Bigfoot3814]

What would be needed to completely get rid of the 2nd Amendment? I'm sure it could be done without a revolution, right?

It would take a massive ammount of voting by all parts of the government. The constitiution is very difficult to ammend, but not impossible. It was done this way so that it would not be changed willy-nilly as some people wish it would.

 

[uppi]

Look man, US public opinion changes over time. Are we supposed to write a new constitution everytime we change something? Or should we write one now and say it can never be changed? Think practically, you are totally irrational on this point.

ps. I'm against judicial activism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Saudi_Arabia

I am not irrational. I am not saying, that you should write an entire new constitution. Just because an article or a sentence needs to be updated, doesn't mean the entire constitution needs to be rewritten. And changing the constitution frequently is not impractical: The Germans are changing their constitution about once a year, the Swiss are holding votes about changing their constitution about twice a year.

And the Saudi Arabs calling the Shari'a a constitution does not mean it is one.

 

[Ecofarm]

I am not irrational. I am not saying, that you should write an entire new constitution. Just because an article or a sentence needs to be updated, doesn't mean the entire constitution needs to be rewritten. And changing the constitution frequently is not impractical: The Germans are changing their constitution about once a year, the Swiss are holding votes about changing their constitution about twice a year.

Noone in the US wants a new constitution (your point dies on entry) and the US changes its constitution via SCOTUS and amendments when it wants. What's your point?

And the Saudi Arabs calling the Shari'a a constitution does not mean it is one.

What part of

the Quran declared to be the constitution

do you not understand?

 

[Cutlass]

[...] the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[...] the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What would be needed to completely get rid of the 2nd Amendment? I'm sure it could be done without a revolution, right?

You need far to many votes. Anti-crime people want gun restrictions, but for the most part the population as a whole does not. It's not going to happen, because the people of the US as a whole don't want it to.

 

[Gooblah]

I think India holds the record for most-changed constitution. As a republic, the nation has existed for ohh...60 years. Yet their constitution has been amended 55 (IIRC) times. That's almost an amendment every year.

Anyways, I don't think the constitution should be amended...however (if it's possible), we should have a council of historians of varying political views (or hell! Let's get international observers) to review the grammar of the 2nd Amendment to see what it means.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states:

“ 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 original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
“ 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. ”

Well, that's a nightmare. In today's terms, it makes little, if any, sense. However, the difference between the two versions (a comma) makes little impact (IMO).
*click* OHHHHHH! I get it! I get it! It makes more sense in the second version, and that's if you compare it to a sentence like this:

The city having been captured, Johnson fled.

So, the 2nd Amendment is saying that (IMO) because a military is essential to the security of our nation, a Citizen's right to have and hold a weapon should not be infringed upon.

However, the Fathers probably (hopefully) knew that weapon control laws would have to be in place (i.e no drawing weapons on people without provocation, etc).

 

[Tycoon101]

...and the US changes its constitution via SCOTUS and amendments when it wants...

Only Amendments. The Supreme Court does does not change the Constitution, it interprets it.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

And changing the constitution frequently is not impractical: The Germans are changing their constitution about once a year, the Swiss are holding votes about changing their constitution about twice a year.

The American Constitution was designed to be a flexible document, but not one so flexible that ammendments can be made on a whim. The way government works, changes to the constitution are not made directly by the people, but by the elected officials, and requires a passing of the bill by both houses and by the president.

But that is beside the point. The American people do not want the bill of rights changed. Wherever this completely false situation of 2/3 of Americans supporting the absolute nullification of the 2nd ammendment came from, it doesn't say much for your argument.

You need far to many votes. Anti-crime people want gun restrictions, but for the most part the population as a whole does not. It's not going to happen, because the people of the US as a whole don't want it to.

This is right, but remember: gun-restirction is not a complete denial of gun rights.

 

[Ecofarm]

Only Amendments. The Supreme Court does does not change the Constitution, it interprets it.

Fair enough. I meant to say that it modifies our intrepretation of it, changing its meaning - the current decision being a case in point.

 

[Tycoon101]

Fair enough. I meant to say that it modifies our intrepretation of it, changing its meaning - the current decision being a case in point.

If you truly feel that the SC is misinterpreting it, you should try to get a delegation of the states to force the proposed amendment for clearer gun rights upon Congress.