Summations Only

Hypersensative, you are the one accusing me of being uncivil. I am just dishing it back to you. Who is being hypersensitive? I will drop it now because I am sick of bantering back and forth with you. I just wanted to put a mirror up to show that you had no leg to stand on.

Hold the mirror up to yourself.

Just drop it faith, JFC.

Somebody put that quote up a while back. Jefferson I believe. I find it rather undecipherable myself and I suspect it was something he wrote in a passing mood. So he's entitled to his opinion. What's your point?

My point is that the US Constitution is a living document, meaning that through history the Constitution has been modified/rewritten dozens of times through history by the Bill of Rights, 27 Amendments to the US Constitution, and by judicial review through the US Supreme Court and other federal courts. The US Constitution has evolved through history, it is not written in stone.I think that is the point Jefferson was trying to make, that Constitution is a contract so to speak to the living generation not tied to the dead generations of the past. We compromise by allowing for these changes to the US Constitution but only by whole-sale ratification of amendments by a 3/4 majority of states or 2/3 majority of the House and Senate.

That phrase "living document" I'm afraid is a red flag to me, as it is often used to justify the Supreme Court's "interpretations" which are really their own rewritings of the Constitution.But revising the Constitution according to the rules laid out for that is what I keep saying is the right way to go about it, so you are preaching to the choir with this one.There are those here, however, and at the links I posted, who sound a little too eager to tear it to shreds and just toss it out, which is what Professor Seidman seems to think we should do with it. "Let's just get rid of it," isn't that what he said? And the main problem with that idea is that there must be at least half the population who don't agree we should get rid of it, but those who hold his view don't seem to care about what we think. I'm generalizing so don't think I'm talking about you. You haven't given your opinion that I can see.

The more pertinent question here is whether you have any argument beyond simply saying 'Nuh uh' to any evidence that contradicts your preferred position. Too old, too small, not taking into account social factors, taking into account too many social factors, international comparisons aren't relevant, there is no correlation between homicides and guns, there is correlation but correlation isn't causation, there is a causal relationship but it is that more homicides causes more people to want guns rather than more guns causing more homicides, none of the evidence matters anyway because gun ownership is a 'natural right'...... and so on and so forth.In these recent gun control threads you have shamelessly flip flopped between multiple positions. And it really smacks of making any argument at all to defend that which you have already decided. You need to get your story straight because at the moment it looks like you are just saying anything in order stop yourself from drawing a conclusion about guns that you won't like. Do you accept that this correlation isn't just random and that it is in fact due to a causal relationship between the two things?What do you think the nature of the causal relationship between these factors is? (i.e. what causes what)

I think that's a very reasonable position to take. 'Living document can be used to justify changes completely outside the spirit of the constitution. I also agree with you in denouncing goofy movements to do away with the 2nd amendment. I'll note in passing that conservatives are just as goofy in their attempts to modify and do away with portions of the 14th amendment that they don't like.But that said, there's no need to revise the constitution to make it support the gun control efforts currently being proposed. The most conservative judges on the Supreme Court already agree that the 2nd amendment does not extend to protecting military weapons and extraordinarily deadly guns for civilian use. We've quoted Justice Scalia saying exactly that several times in this thread.So you can cite one or more founding fathers saying otherwise all you want. The founding fathers are not a monolithic group who agreed on everything. We don't need to overthrow them because they are all dead. What matters is what they managed to write into the constitution. That's the law of the land until it is amended.For ease of reference, here is Justice Scalia again from Heller v. District of Columbia. Some emphasis added by me.

quote:

---

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

---

Within the framework outlined above by Justice Scalia, there is plenty of room to require registration, to ban certain types of weapons, and to limit the places where weapons can be carried; all without treating the constitution as a living document.Some of you feel the need to boo reality, so Percy and company have provided a handy tool for doing just that. Some people have even used it to boo key lime pie! The jeer button, as always is located to the left of all my posts, and is marked with a minus sign.

I think it was thought that, at least locally, state militias would be a better defense than a federal army. But yeah, preventing the Feds from being too powerful was another intention. I don't think it was about "allowing" civilians to own weapons. By default, people have the right to own weapons. What the amendment was to do was prevent that right from being removed. I think there's an important distinction between granting a right and preventing a pre-existing right from being removed.I think its backwards to view it like the government "lets" us have arms. "The Framers" were not a homogenous group, containing both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, so i don't think we can say that they had one intention. James Madison, a Federalist, who wrote the amendment, originally submitted it like this:

quote:

---

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

---

That reads like an individual right to me. I think that seizing arms would be an infringment of the right to keep them and would be prohibited by the 2nd. I think that safe requirements would be considered unconstitutional much like requiring gun locks was (IIRC). The argument was that it prevented people from exercising their right to self defense because it prevented them from adequately employing their weapon, or something like that - going from memory on that one.We already have regulations, and I don't think registration would be unconstitutional per se. Preventing registration does prevent wide scale confiscation, so I can see that as a nip-it-in-the-bud kind of precaution. And I don't see much benefit to registration. I don't think they'd need to have a list of people to call on, it could just be an open call to everyone. "If you got a gun and want to fight, meet at this place". Its not like they have to send out flyers to individuals.

Well couldn't we just do that? I'm not saying "let's do that" but we could do it, right? What's stopping us?It's 2013, we know a lot more than those goofy people from the past who wore wigs and ridiculous clothes and didn't have the internet. I mean, we HAVE the internent which means we have ALL the answers. Google could probably help us write a Constitution better than any other one...and it would be on Word so it would be checked for grammar AND spelling.We could definitely do a better job. I myself would like to see speech limited a bit. Instead of "Freedom of speech" I like "Freedom of some speech." just to control those who get "carried away" with their retoric. That's just me, you change whatever you want to change.What do you think?- Oni

I don't have a straight story, I think its a cloudy issue and I'm trying to figure it out. Unfortunately, if you don't tow the party line then you guys start acting crazy and make irrational accusations that aren't true. I think that some people want to commit a homicide and then they acquire a gun. I think that some people acquire a gun, and then want to commit a homicide. I think that some people acquire guns because of the homicides. I think that some people acquire a gun and then commit a homicide they weren't planning on. I think that some homicides are prevented from people acquiring guns.I don't think there's any one general causal relationship.

So basically you have nothing beyond 'Nuh uh' and you will continue citing different denial tactics whenever you are confronted with any evidence that doesn't support your preferred position. A single definitive relationship that applies to every single conceivable instance of gun use? No. Of course not. That isn't how the real world works.But does the evidence point towards a detectable trend? And if so what is it? Here's a clue: Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level. Ah. I see. If the evidence doesn't support your position then say that it's inconclusive and suggest that we 'teach the controversy'.....That old tactic.

No, I've made arguments and dug up data and had considerations. Go on... That's a lie. First off, I haven't even staked out much of a position. Also, I don't recall any good conclusive evidence, do you?I mean, sure, we got a trend. Neato! Are you ever going to make an argument based on it?

Not like we are going to follow the science. That would be crazy.

I repeat - Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level. You spent the initial portion of these gun threads denying that there was any correlation between these things at all. Do you now accept that there is a correlation? Do you think this correlation is just random fluke or the result of a causal relationship between the factors? So you accept that there is a trend. Well that is progress. Yes we do. And the trend seems pretty conclusively evidenced. What is it you want to see further evidence of if not a trend? Are you demanding that it be conclusively proven that every single gun ever owned will be used for a massacre? What do you want to see evidence of if the evidenced trend in question is not sufficient?You’ve flapped around trying on different arguments to support your preconceived position. That’s a debate tactic. So is that. Ah. Yes. I forgot. You are just asking innocent questions. Merely putting forward objections in an entirely impartial and balanced manner. Taking no position whilst highlighting the controversy. Good for you. How jolly reasonable. Numerous people, including myself, have put forward arguments and data on this subject. You have effectively responded with ‘Nuh uh’ at every turn and this fake ‘I’m just impartially objecting’ thing of yours is just the latest weeze along that line of evidence denying debate.The last gasp tactic of those who face evidence that contradicts their position is to insist that the evidence is inconclusive and to assert that they are merely being fair and balanced in rejecting it. This is how unreasonable positions are made out to be superficially reasonable. Creationists do it, climate change deniers do it and apparently those who oppose fire-arm regulations do it to.