Is the US Constitution right?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And your "argument" doesn't refute my response to Wendy. Your "argument" was non seqitur.

Nope, it wasn't. After all, defense *is* the reason for the right.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dks13827 3]

Gun violence ? Did you control for other factors ?
For just one, CCW holders are a pretty safe group.

For another, my parents taught me that it is wrong to shoot someone cause they dis me. They also didn't let me leave the house saturday night, as a teen, carrying a GUN !

[muff528 3]

Quote

>Well, it seems that the alternative is anarchy. Look out yer window.

True. All those marauding zombies, communists and Muslims would be eating my brains in a New York minute if I didn't keep blowin em to bits with my handy Mossberg.

Well, then you, too, would be participating in the chaos (unless you were defending yourself or family from an immediate threat). We have actual laws to deal with "unlawful" acts. Most are "Constitutional".
Sorry, I didn't realize this was necessarily a "gun" thread.

[muff528 3]

Quote

.......

Nope.. no anarchy to be seen our here in the country...

Actually, if, hypothetically, it really came right down to it (general uprising, revolution, etc.) your land in the country would really be more valuable than all the other stuff the occupiers are clamoring for. Can't eat cash or grow blueberries in a condo. All those really destitute folks and functionally disabled who are now totally dependent on the government for food and shelter would be the real losers.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

>Well, it seems that the alternative is anarchy. Look out yer window.

True. All those marauding zombies, communists and Muslims would be eating my brains in a New York minute if I didn't keep blowin em to bits with my handy Mossberg.

More like an Ohio minute:

Quote

Delaware County is the first in Ohio to hold a zombie-themed hazardous materials exercise, according to the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, and other emergency officials around the state are keeping an eye on how things go.
"They want to see what lessons we learn, and they like the idea of getting out the zombie preparedness message" about bracing for the unexpected," said Carter, the health district spokesman. "The other message that we're trying to convey is come be a zombie."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DesertAttorney 0]

Quote

Quote

.......

Nope.. no anarchy to be seen our here in the country...

Actually, if, hypothetically, it really came right down to it (general uprising, revolution, etc.) your land in the country would really be more valuable than all the other stuff the occupiers are clamoring for. Can't eat cash or grow blueberries in a condo. All those really destitute folks and functionally disabled who are now totally dependent on the government for food and shelter would be the real losers.

Canned food and Kalashnikovs...Canned food and Kalashnikovs.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

.......

Nope.. no anarchy to be seen our here in the country...

Actually, if, hypothetically, it really came right down to it (general uprising, revolution, etc.) your land in the country would really be more valuable than all the other stuff the occupiers are clamoring for. Can't eat cash or grow blueberries in a condo. All those really destitute folks and functionally disabled who are now totally dependent on the government for food and shelter would be the real losers.

Canned food and Kalashnikovs...Canned food and Kalashnikovs.

Apparently they prefer Mossbergs over Kalashnikovs. (Prolly don't want any processed food, either.)

[dks13827 3]

The Constitution is wonderful, if it is followed. :(

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right

Free speech is pretty recent too..... Not too long ago the govt would just kill you. So does that also deserve to be excluded?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Wendy, to whom I responded, specifically wrote "guns", not self defense.

Lamest answer ever.

So then your comment about healthcare going back just means that cat scans are not covered.

I guess the internet/radio/TV should not be covered under the first then? They are also recent.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

With that said, there are huge differences in what the Constitution meant when it was written and what it means today--look at voting rights for an obvious example--no longer based on 3/5 of a person for "persons not free" and nearly universal sufferage today.

Many of those changes didn't alter the meaning or rightness of the Constitution, but rather fixed flaws in the application.

It espouses equality of every man, which should be read as every person. In 1800, this was incomplete - it meant every white male. Now it really does mean every person, with the explicit laws against blacks and women removed, and then the systematic biases reduced greatly in the 60s and 70s.

To Wendy's question in general - in the past 200 years the Constitution has been a template for other nations, and for emerging nations. Other then explicitly listing a right to privacy, I can't think of examples where someone else has become "more right" then the Constitution.

The most significant variation with others stems around the unusual configuration of the two houses of Congress based on statehood and population, and of course the indirect election of the President. The parliamentary system is also indirect, but doesn't have the distortion of the Senate.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

I think that it does a pretty good job of trying to create a system that works for most people.

Quote

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

It does that, and it tried to create a system of govt that would not destroy those rights.

Quote

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed.

I don't think the basic human rights have changed. The methods have changed. Free speech is still important even if it is now mainly radio, TV, and internet. The right to self defense has changed from fists to rocks to spears to guns. The right against illegal search has gone from you physical self to your electronic records..... So the method might have changed, but I still think people have the right to free speech, self defense, and privacy.

Quote

countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence.

Yes, and the countries without guns still have violence. The violence is the issue, not the object.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Wendy, to whom I responded, specifically wrote "guns", not self defense.

Lamest answer ever.

So then your comment about healthcare going back just means that cat scans are not covered.

Battle axes and blood-letting for all!

But seriously... The point raised regarding arguments about whether the government should do/allow something vs. arguments about what the constitution says is important. It causes a lot of people to argue past one another on this forum and elsewhere, but in most cases that's all people want to do anyway.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

But seriously... The point raised regarding arguments about whether the government should do/allow something vs. arguments about what the constitution says is important. It causes a lot of people to argue past one another on this forum and elsewhere, but in most cases that's all people want to do anyway.

Well, it is actually pretty simple IMO... The Constitution states what the Fed Govt can and cannot do.

Protection of the 2nd is there... There is no claim about health care.

When someone tried to claim that the right to self defense does not include modern weapons... I think it is only fair to ask if the 1st protects on the printing press or the internet as well.

So when a guy tries to just ignore the Constitution and then also pretend things are in it that are not... I think it is fair to point that out.

[quade 3]

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition.

I kind of think not.

I think the original document had a number of deficiencies that needed to be addressed over the years; slavery, voting rights . . .

The Bill of Rights and other Amendments addressed some issues, but what irks me is that some folks seem to think certain issues are sacred rights simply because they appear in the US Constitution . . . well, again, I refer back to slavery and voting. Not everything our Founding Fathers wrote was brilliant.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition.

I kind of think not.

I think the original document had a number of deficiencies that needed to be addressed over the years; slavery, voting rights . . .

The Bill of Rights and other Amendments addressed some issues, but what irks me is that some folks seem to think certain issues are sacred rights simply because they appear in the US Constitution . . . well, again, I refer back to slavery and voting. Not everything our Founding Fathers wrote was brilliant.

It seems that they forgot to mention slavery and voting (except by members of Congress or by the Electors) in the Constitution. Both issues could easily have been addressed through legal pathways and/or faithful interpretation of the Constitution in the context of the founding principles. The country failed to address those issues for over a hundred years. Of course rights are not "sacred" simply because they appear in the Constitution. Those rights are only as sacred as the honor of those who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and of the population who places their trust in them.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

Guns make a convenient boogeyman . . .

Guns also make it more convenient to BE a boogeyman.

I do own lots of guns......

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

Not really. Wendy mentioned guns because they are the "arms" of the age. I seem to recall an amendment in there that mentions the right to keep and bear arms.

Now unless you're ready to say the constitution is wrong, you have to admit that there is a right to own guns in the US. If you think the constitution is wrong on that point, say so and back it up. Otherwise your word games are not cute or valuable as a contribution.

Do you believe humans have the right to own weapons?
Do you believe humans in the US have the right to own weapons?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

But seriously... The point raised regarding arguments about whether the government should do/allow something vs. arguments about what the constitution says is important. It causes a lot of people to argue past one another on this forum and elsewhere, but in most cases that's all people want to do anyway.

Well, it is actually pretty simple IMO... The Constitution states what the Fed Govt can and cannot do.

Protection of the 2nd is there... There is no claim about health care.

When someone tried to claim that the right to self defense does not include modern weapons... I think it is only fair to ask if the 1st protects on the printing press or the internet as well.

So when a guy tries to just ignore the Constitution and then also pretend things are in it that are not... I think it is fair to point that out.

Er, sorry for the confusion, I was actually making a joke about universal health care stopping at blood-letting to add to your argument not argue against it. I think your stance is pretty clear and is not part of the arguing past one another that I was referring to.

Kallend's opinion on "bearing arms" seems to be an amalgamation of "a lot of people that have guns probably shouldn't, legal or otherwise", "the people as a whole don't bear any significant arms when compared to the US military which was the original thing the 2nd amendment was trying to protect against", and "fewer guns in general would be a good thing." What results is a sort of gelatinous in-actionable viewpoint from where he picks apart bad arguments but doesn't do much else.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I think the original document had a number of deficiencies that needed to be addressed over the years; slavery, voting rights . . .

Yes
The Enumeration Clause counted a slave as 3/5 of a person.

A1 S9 is in there, but it ended in 1808

The Fugitive Slave Clause was in the original as well

Adherence to the BoR's would have made the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and the 24th unnecessary. But people decided to ignore the basic tenants and that made those amendments necessary

For example the 13th got rid of slavery.... But no one wanted to think of them as citizens, so now came the 14th. But people STILL didn't want to give them the rights of citizens, so down came the 15th. Somehow women were still ignored, so the 19th. Then people tried to prevent blacks from voting with poll taxes, so in came the 24th.

The basic tenants of the BoR's are valid and without the racism, would and should have been enough.

And lets not forget that at one point EVERY branch of Govt was wrong on slavery.

Dred Scott: In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States.

Still, following the BoR's that should not have happened.

[DaVinci 0]

My mistake, sorry