Wow, its been 47 years since I studied Durkheims Law, a theory of suicide but I think still applies. While a firearm is definately a more effective tool than others, what brings people to that point is entirely different. Suicide rates increase as the social ties decrease, and the reverse. What other issues might be prevalent in Utah? Take a couple guesses about their social structures.
Good reference to the article of a planned march on Washington with loaded guns to put the govt. on notice. How dumb can people get. I doubt that the govt. is intimidated by untrained, small brained people carrying small arms. The idea that one can defend them selves vs the govt. is ludicrous beyond comprehension. It’s like an army of aphids trying to have their way with a person who needs only to walk over them with the sole of a boot.
It’s totally astonishing that any weapon that any civilian without training could possibly afford to defend themselves against the govt. could be effective in any situation other then individual confrontation. There is nothing that a bunch of idiots can do with ar15 s vs a determined military with drones and air superiority, tanks and tactical nuclear weapons. What a joke. Controlling and regulating weapons for civilian use has to do with keeping people from hurting each other…IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DETERRING PEOPLE FROM INTIMIDATING THE US govt.
Dag, you and I are not the first to debate the meaning of the second amendment and we won’t be the last. The constitution having been written as a cooperative agreement by the origional colonies to create a unified government to fight a possible second British invasion, and the bill of rights having been written as a document to guarantee that the new government would not usurp the right of the states nor enact upon the colonists the same evils that the Brits had, one of them being to try to strip the colonists of their weapons, I interpret the seconnd amendment as limiting the federal powers rather than enacting them. The unified government, the federal government, was given the powers to raise an army (difficult in the first revolutionary war) and enact taxes to oay for it. The Bill of Rights was written to severely resrict the federal givernments powers.
The federal government has not confiscated legally owned guns. The second amendment clearly prohibits outright confiscation, although that is a concern of those opposing stricter legislation. However, the federal government can make it so difficult to get own guns legally that only criminals will have them. That’s my fear. Beyond that, I do not believe the federal government has jurisdiction over other than the interstate sale of guns.
" There is nothing that a bunch of idiots can do with ar15 s vs a determined military with drones and air superiority, tanks and tactical nuclear weapons. What a joke."
Remember 58,000 dead Americans in Viet Nam?
“Controlling and regulating weapons for civilian use has to do with keeping people from hurting each other”
Dag, I see it as protecting the right of people to protect themselves, as well as the larger constitutional issue.
The Vietnamese people were pawns in a multi level chess game. Luckily most of them learned From the French that it is often best to be friends with whoever shows up at your village with guns. They were relatively well armed and many seemed to have been related to McGyver.
@same
You read a lot into the second amendment. You need to tell us exactly where it makes all those claims. It really isn’t that long and is pretty self explanatory to English majors which the framers were aware of. One thing you are right about is reading all amendments in context. Punctuation, word usage and references to other rights are very important. Don’t discount the difference between “persons” and “people”. Courts have upheld the right to bear arms, not based on the second amendment alone as gun advocates would have you believe. It was a combination of rights and having to do with property rights as much as any which did use the “person” reference.
This simple focus on the second amendment is a real easy come on for Fox and NRA fear tactics. Avocates of gun rights should use court rulings and not depend on the second amendment as a reason for limiting gun laws…
Even court decisions have stated that using the second amendment alone is a loose situation for gun rights peoples. You need to read the tenth amendment again too. It reinforces the central govts. role. Conservatives when in office used this amendment to reinforce Home land security laws the EPA which they signed into law, and other agencies they backed…back when the GOP was indeed the grand old party. Even the conservative Supreme court acknowledges the the Fed.l governments role in making rulings that usurp state laws in forming Obama Care. The Bill of rights does not just restrict a central govts. rights. It defines our human rights as individuals (persons) and our collective rights (people). If any thing, the tenth amendment restricts states rights to govern to only when not specifically legislated by the central govt. Powers not given by the constitution to the United States (that’s the central govt. ) are reserved to the states. BTW, the central ovt. Is given the power to make additional amendments to the constitution…the states can’t do that directly but only through their representatives to congress.
Simple slogans and references in a complicated world make it difficult to debate actual situations. Are you ready to support everyone’s right to bear arms limited only by state legislation with no central background check with weapons technology available in two hundred years ? I gurantee by then, individuals without out these regulations will have the ability to kill with impunity accross sate lines.
Well,all felonys are not the same,I really dont care,but I had to to give up my Blackhawk because of a charge resulting from a twelfth of an ounce of marijuana(I still find it incredible that MJ is a schedule one drug)
But @Dagosa,here in good Virginny you can now carry a concealed weapon in a bar(what was the GA smoking at that time?)-Kevin { kinda like extinguishing a fire with gas-mixing firearms and alcohol}
" If any thing, the tenth amendment restricts states rights to govern to only when not specifically legislated by the central govt"
Huh? You’d better read it again. You have it backwards.
And regarding context, perhaps that visit I suggested to the text of the Declaration of Independence would be a good idea.
Re: the future, I can learn from the past, and from what’s already been written, but unfortunately cannot learn from the future. However, if the Constitution and the BoR still say what they do, than yes, I will still believe as I do.
Same…I quoted it almost verbatim. " Powers not given to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states…" in real language, it means that if the central govt does not legislate according to the constitution, the states are free to. If the central govt. does, it takes precedence. Do you remember the civil rights act ? 27 amendments have been made to the constitution since its original signing. The constitution does not restrict anything, it defines it. We have redefined the law of the land that all states must abide by since the Constitution was signed, twenty seven times. States rights advocates have probably been against them 27 times, and they have been wrong twenty seven times…,because they became the law of the land. Are you saying Obamacare did not pass ? I still don’t understand why you think the central govt. can’t pass laws that override state laws…they did it ! Once an amendment has been made… it becomes part of the constitution
That was why we had a civil war ! When you say, I have it backwards, when I said that states rights to legislate exist only when not legislated by the central govt. .
That must mean that if a state legislature enacted a provision, the federal government could do nothing about it. Is that what you mean ? If so, there are twenty seven exceptions and numerous federal laws that have been written based upon each, that the states and their residence have had to abide by that back my point. Including Obamacare which the court and the GOP head of the house said…is “the law of the land”. State govt. in republican states are trying to find ways of fighting it, but they are doing it unsuccessfully. Just like GOP govs. tried to restrict voting rights and that didn’t work either because of the outing rights act.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
What this says is that only those powers granted to the federal government by the consitution are theirs, and all other powers belong to the states and/or the people unless otherwise restricted to them by the consitution. That’s backwards from your comment “the tenth amendment restricts states rights to govern to only when not specifically legislated by the central govt”.
The Bill of Rights was written as a prohibitive document to limit the powers of the federal government. A war had just been fought to free the colonies from the tyranny of an overpowered central government (the British monarchy) and the colonies did not want to allow that amount of power to develop in the new federation. Had it been written to limit the powers of the states, I doubt of it ever would have been ratified. It was the belief of the colonists at that time that had a federation not been ratified, England would be back to fight again to regain their tyranny.
The Bill of Rights was not written to grant rights to the colonies…they already HAD all the rights with self governance. The Bill was written to ensure to the colonies that they wouldn;t LOSE their rights by signing the Constitution.
I agree with you but you do not go far enough…Read article five of the bill of rights. It gives congress ALONE…not the states or any individual to make amendments to the constitution. Any amendment enacted becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over state law. if that doesn’t mean that the central govt. can make laws that take precedence over state laws, I don’t know what does. The central govt can do one of two things. They can make a law based upon an existing amendment, or, twenty seven times, they can make a new amendment to support a federal law they wish to make…the states cannot do this…l
.
Same, you are debating a theory and not what has actually happened twenty seven times. The only reason that there were 27 amendments is, states have violated persons and people’s rights as originally given in the bill of rights. States cannot do that. They cannot violate a persons original rights and it takes the federal govt to make that determining factor. It is for the courts to decide when amendments contradict each other and decide on a contested law based upon an amendment. It’s the federal govt. job to protect individual rights…the states can’t do this. When I have a problem with my state violating my rights, I go to the fed govt.
That’s why I want federal laws or background checks. The states can’t won’t do it.
Ultimately the states have their rights represented in the senate…and to a majority degree, in the house. Indirectly, it’s state representation that makes the amendments to the onstitution and why people are afraid off the federal govt. is ridiculous. They are afraid if they are of one party and and the other is in office. It’s as simple as that…politics.
I agree with you on article five.
Unfortunately, you are correct in that the constitution has been amended beyond its original intentand beyond recognition and that the supreme court can simply “find” that something, anything, does not violate the rights of the people or an individuals rights. The extreme example is that the SCOTUS has found that a state can take a man’s property through eminent domian for a mall becasue a mall pays more taxes. At what point will it end?
I added a final comment perhaps you did not see. I feel people are more afraid of the govt. when their party is not in office. GOP members were not as upset when the EPA was formed. It only gets out of control when a Dem takes office…as an independent, I reserve the right to be concerned when either takes office.
Same, your example then is a state that is out of control and a conservative supreme court allows it. We need more liberals on the court ! I guarantee (not really but it sounds good) that if all on the oourt were ACLU members, that would not have happened.
The extreme example is that the SCOTUS has found that a state can take a man's property through eminent domian for a mall becasue a mall pays more taxes.
Don’t forget about our beloved David Souter here in NH who also voted for that. One of the worse decisions by the supreme court EVER.
Yep, I’ll agree with that. In Richfield, MN, they had an Olds dealer right on the freeway where I bought my first new car. They had been there for years and years. Best Buy decided that’s where they wanted to build their new headquarters building. It was quite a fight but the city won and the car dealer was gone. I think it went to the MN Supreme Court but not national-don’t know though. Of course you know where best buy is. Well of course you know where Olds is too, so might have been a vacant lot by now. Couldn’t believe anyway how they could get away with it in the US.
“Money makes the world go round.”
Something similar is going on a few miles from here. The Powder Room, a gun range that has been in the Powell/Delaware area for several years, may have to close up. The range has been leasing it’s land and the owners of the land are talking about selling the land so they can build some $250k homes int he area.
also:
Ethanol /Renewalable Fuel Act is up for renewal and debate
Perhaps we can get to drink or eat corn rather than ruining our gas milage and paying for that priviledge.
Dag, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that my opinions are swayed by party affiliation. They are not. And I know there are many like me. My opinions are swayed by principles. There are a number of issues that I adamantly disagree with the GOP “party” platform and many that I disagree with in the Dem’s platform. And some on both sides that I agree with.
As to more liberals being on the Supreme Court, may God help us if that happens…and it will. Justices Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Scalia are all in their 70’s, and Alito is in his 60’s. Chances are that Obama may get to fill 4, perhaps 5, more seats. His history with Sotomayor and Kagan is to nominate extreme left-wing advocates. Heck, Kagan had never ever been a judge or a practicing lawyer, and showed total distain for the law when she threw recruiters off of the Harvard campus. She was nominated solely for being an activist.
What this country needs is more justices with conservative views of the law.