BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 01:32 PM

... and the myths just keep rolling!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 01:51 PM

Kermit: "Myth? Myth?!"
Janice: "Yeth?"
--The Muppet Movie

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 01:52 PM

Maybe that was not your intent, LH, but if you will read your second paragraph, that appears to be what you are doing.

And Guest, if the issue is as clear and simple as you suggest, why is there so much argument about the subject of the right to bear arms?

And what does any of this have to do with gun control? Unless, of course, somebody had in mind suggesting Charlton Heston as the candidate to oppose GW.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 02:08 PM

GUEST "hanging around on the gun thing" is fine, but I suggest you consider aiming your efforts at changing constitutional law, rather then garnering support for a new and highly creative inturpretation of it.

We have a long history of Supreme Court cases following the second ammendment, and the interpretation is indisputable; the second amendment guarenteess the individual the right to bear arms. In fact, a majority of state constitutions are even more specific about the individual's right to bear arms.

The truth is you are kidding yourself if you think this right will be taken away by your reading of the law. I do believe it reasonable for you to push for a change or a repeal of the ammendment, though - and this is certainly a legitmate suggestion, since the mechanism for ammendments exists, and has been used throughout US history. Good luck.

... and Little Hawk why is cute, funny or otherwise acceptable to portray hunters and gun owners as ignorant piggish humans whose habits include berr swilling, littering and pornographic magazine readers - even just some of them, as you say? Would you find it humorous if the Folk Music game protrayed folkies as self indulgent, pot-head, hippy types with no morality, poor hygene and rampant SDTs? I would find that offensive - even some people thought it was only correct for some folkies.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 03:19 PM

Hate to jump in on this one, and I mean no disrespect to either Doug or Jed (both of whom I find to be intelligent and polite gentlemen, even on political threads where their views are in the minority). But our Guest's interpretation of the second amendment is not "highly creative" at all, and in fact is shared by a great many Americans AND by the Supreme Court -- which has consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does NOT confer an individual right of gun ownership outside of the context of a militia. More often than not (in my experience), people who cite the Second Amendment in support of personal ownership of guns conveniently leave off the first words, and only quote the portion that comes after the comma. That is more "creative" than anything our Guest did.

Of course, we could go on to discuss the Constitutionality of governmental restrictions on the ownership of nuclear bombs, nerve gas, and other devices that fall neatly within the common definition of "arms". By Jed's logic, the government has no business telling me that I can't walk down Main Street with a machine gun, a beltful of hand grenades, a canister of Sarin gas, and any other "arms" of my choosing. But I suppose that truly is a topic for another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 03:21 PM

Its enough to make you "Ralph".

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 04:12 PM

A great many American do favor gun control, and even the elimination of guns completely for private use - but many more Americans do not. The right of individuals to keep firearms is supported by Supreme Court decisions, and has not been overturned. The placement of commas notwithstanding - the second ammendment does support the right for individuals to own firearms, it has been interpreted thus historically - and it could be overturned by constitutional ammendment.

There may be Supreme Court tests of how far the ammendment extends this right to modern application. But overall I believe that the second ammendment clearly establishes the right of individuals to bear military weapons, that is NOT just weapons for hunting or target shooting, and NOT just for the protection from foreign invaders. I believe the second ammendment establishes the right for individuals to bear arms for the purpose of preventing oppression of the people by their own government. I believe this position is supported by common sense, history, by state and federal court rulings, and by majority of state constitutions.

It may well be time that Americans wish to rescind this right - fair enough. That is possible. But I believe the second ammendment as it stands spports my right to own firearms, and allows little room for restrictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: thosp
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 04:15 PM

my interpretation of the 2nd amendment -- an individuals right to bear arms is sacrosant -- so that in times of danger to the state -- he shall be able to bring his own arms (weapon) to join in a militia etc.

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 04:28 PM

... and by the way; I don't own a firearm, and probably never will - unless they're banned!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 05:02 PM

Whistle Stop: I would never advocate that anyone should walk down the streets with hand grenades, or machine guns. Actually, I believe that in order to own a machine gun one must have a federal permit of some kind.

If, however, the Constitution restricts ownership of firearms to potential members of a militia, why is it possible in so many states to legally carry concealed weapons (guns)? One would have to know that someone by now would have challenged those laws in the courts if there was a chance at winning.

What about Charlton Heston, anyway???? Think he would be a worthy opponent for George W.? Wayne LaPierrer (sp)could be V.P. candidate!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 05:42 PM

Nearly all state constitutions copied the US constitution regarding the right to bear arms. A large majority of those estates are more explicit then the second ammendment, and specify that individuals have the right to bear arms. CT says, for example; "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." and AK taking its' lead from the Federal and adding its own clarification says "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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State." These two examples are typical of how most states reflected the US guidelines on the matter.

I still think it is reasonable for advocates to work for change through constitutional legislative means. If the US is ready to give up this freedom; so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 07:51 PM

Ah ha, Jed, my friend, but are you saying that because you know it would never be adopted?? :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 11:05 PM

It may become adopted. It wouldn't win today, but we are loosing more and more personal freedoms every day in this country and future generations may never appreciate the difference. This is a hot issue with the press and many Hollywood types - the left will not let it go. I suspect someday these and many other freedoms will be gone. Hopefully after my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 01 - 02:02 AM

Well, Jed, I can only hope you are wrong. But the times, they are a'changin', you're right.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 21 Jun 01 - 10:08 AM

Jed, I understand that this is how you interpret the Second Amendment, and I will concede that you are not alone in your interpretation. I am not alone in mine, either. State constitutions are not what I was talking about (there are fifty of those, and I won't pretend to be familiar with all of them), but I do know that state constitutions do not necessarily track all that closely with either the US Constitution or the various interpretive rulings that have been issued by the Supreme Court. So I would propose that, for the sake of this discussion, we should stick to the US Constitution, as amended and interpreted through the years.

Since we have now drifted into this discussion, though, how would YOU apply the Second Amendment to other "arms"? The Second Amendment refers to arms generically (not just "sidearms"), which presumably means that any and all modern weaponry is covered -- including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. I don't ask this to be ridiculous, even though it may sound that way. But if "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in any way, then the US government has no right whatsoever to limit personal possession of these weapons -- which is a pretty scary thought, but perfectly consistent with the position you have taken. It also is what we would need if we were truly serious about resisting the power of an oppressive modern government, either our own or that of a foreign power. Maybe an 18th-century British army could only field muskets and cannon, but modern armies rely on highly mechanized and terrifically destructive armaments, which we would have to be able to match (in both destructive capability and numbers) if we were to put up serious resistance to the state.

Doug, you correctly note that a federal permit is required to own automatic weapons. In fact, the requirements one must satisfy to obtain such a permit are pretty restrictive. Has this "right" not already been "infringed"?

As for what the American public supports, I confess that I don't know for sure. But I do know that in political and public opinion polls, the answer you get often depends on how you ask the question. If you ask people "Do you support the repeal of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights?", most people will probably answer "Hell, NO!" If you ask "Do you think everyone should be allowed to walk down Main Street, and through the halls of public buildings (elementary schools, the White House, etc.), with any weapons they choose to carry, and with the police powerless to do anything about it?", you would probably also get an overwhelming "NO!" in response. Since, under your interpretation, those answers can't be reconciled, I would think you should be a little more cautious about claiming majority support for your position.

Again, this is not meant to be silly. But in life, most questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. And once you have accepted that the most reasonable interpretation allows for some restriction on the ownership of weapos by individuals, then most of this Second Amendment talk goes away and we're back to where we really should be -- discussing where a reasonable modern society should draw the line.

I look forward to your replies, gentlemen. -- WS

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: BobP
Date: 21 Jun 01 - 12:59 PM

That was me as "Guest"; too busy to check grammar or my state of cookielessness.

I noticed several comments to my post, some reflected a common misunderstanding that both sides of the issues exploit to their own ends.

Much like drugs, neither side wants progress, the debate alone suffices for political attention; and continuing the debate is quite profitable. Yes! Like most third-rail issues, this one's mostly about money.

Whistlestop's "Hate to jump in . . . " post hits the mark deadon. The NRA would have no use for that position. And strange though it may seem, the otherside, which I call the "Bradybillers", won't be inviting the author of that to their rallies either.

For DougR, who posts . . . And Guest, if the issue is as clear and simple as you suggest, why is there so much argument about the subject of the right to bear arms?

Answer: arguing IS the game, this is mostly about politics, not guns.

. . . And what does any of this have to do with gun control?

Answer: The NRA uses the 2nd ammendment as a shield to fend off attacks from the bradybillers. When cornered, they maneuver gracefully by making points that would be appropriate had the ammendment never existed.

In other words, people like Ted owned weapons before the ammendment and were confident that governmental confiscation need not be a concern. Since nothing changed with respect to that the day it took affect, obviously the amendment protects gun ownership?

There's a flaw in that logic, but in speeches, mostly delivered to the pro-gun crowd, who's gonna complain?

Why do courts not enforce the ammendment as written? Simple: Courts respond to legal arguements, as presented. It's in neither side's interest to argue to that.

Shedding light on Madison's words, would not benefit either side. In fact, it's the bradybillers who've labeled "security of a free state" as "fascist".

Anyway, people's lives are being destroyed by this. And we can't even get past the insanity of "gun shows" (trading weapons and cash over a folding table under a tent inthe woods), instead of in a regular business on "Main Street", so we're pretty much screwed for the time being.

About the ammendment.

The language objected to in my post, Madison's words, are not "original" or "historic" or "quaint" and don't need changing! The number two item in the Bill-Of- Rights, "Supreme Law OF The Land", superseding state law. Although mos items in the bill of rights have been nibbled at over these past 200 years, no frontal attack against any has reached the credible stage.

Three quarters of the state legislatures are gonna bury one of Madison's Big 10, gimme a break! We will eventually win.

Someday gunowners will be proud to be members of a well regulated militia. Regulated by the community which they protect. And, then you'll know that your gun owning neighbor has had safey training, range training (to hit what he's aiming at?) and has not been involved in activity of a beligerent nature.

Terrible ideas currently opposed by both sides!

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 01 - 07:59 PM

WS: I agree that with any poll the wording of the question often dictates the answer to the question. If the question was asked the way you posed it (walking down Main Street, etc.) no doubt you would get the rousing "no" you suggest.

If the question was asked, "Would you favor repel of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights," I'm not certain what answer you would get. I'm not convinced that many people who know what the Second Amendment guarantees.

But were you to ask, "do you believe that you have a right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States?" I suspect you would get a rousing yes! I do think, however, that you would receive more "no's" from people residing in the states Al Gore carried in the last election, than from those living in the states Bush carried.

I have no problem myself with folks having to obtain a special permit to own machine guns, and I wouldn't favor anyone owning a nuclear bomb (especially Kendall).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 22 Jun 01 - 01:44 AM

WS - well reasoned arguements, and points-of-view. I only mentioned the state constitutions because they so closely follow the Federal, but I agree they don't fit this discussion.

I agree also that there are differing opinions on the meaning of the ammendment. Most Americans believe the ammendment protects their personal right to bear arms, and that in deed has been the result. We have a long history of personal firearm ownership in America. If we have a supreme court that reads it differently in the future, it will be a signifcant departure from the past. I don't think it will happen. It is possible further restrictions on gun ownership anduse could be established with new interpretations from a different court - but I don't see a wholesale turn around happening on the interpretation of this ammendment. I also think this is the tactic of the left; to continue to chip away at firearm rights, and make them harder to own and use - to reduce, and effectively eliminate them.

I don't have a problem with US and state governments restricting the possession and use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. I don't see why they would be protected by the second ammendment - but it is possible someone would push the issue to the supreme court for ruling.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 Jun 01 - 08:23 AM

Thanks for your replies, Doug and Jed. But while both of you still seem to feel that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to own and carry sidearms, you also both seem to feel that it allows for restrictions on the ownership of other (more powerful) arms. Again, I can't follow your logic -- it seems to me that you just want to draw the line where it makes sense to YOU, but justify it by reference to the apparently limitless right to own arms that your interpretation of the Second Amendment confers. What would be your Constitutional argument against someone who feels that the line should be drawn in a different place -- one that allows for personal ownership of machine guns, nuclear bombs, and other more powerful weaponry?

Jed, when you say that you "don't see why [ownership of weapons of mass destruction] would be protected by the second amendment," you leave me confused. As I read it, either it does establish an unlimited right to own "arms" (of any type), or it does not. If you accept that the Second Amendment right to own arms IS limited, then we're back to discussing what sorts of limits are appropriate: limits on the type of weapons that are covered (sidearms yes, nerve gas no), or perhaps limits on the circumstances of "ownership". Since the Second Amendment does not in any way refer to types of weapons ("arms," with no qualifiers), but does refer to the circumstances and purposes for which those weapons are deemed necessary ("a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"), a reasonable person might conclude that the circumstances are the primary limiting factor envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Therefore, firearms might be collectively owned in a militia arsenal (equivalent to modern-day National Guard arsenals), but not individually owned by every Tom, Dick and Harry who decides he wants them.

It isn't enough to point to a Constitutional Amendment as your justification, unless you are prepared to examine the language of the amendment closely to discover its true meaning. The words are important; they wouldn't be in there if they didn't have any bearing on this. Also, Jed, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court HAS NOT interpreted the Second Amendment to confer an individual right to keep and bear arms outside of a militia context. They pretty much leave the question of restrictions on ownership of weapons up to the states, which exert varying levels of control over the keeping (and bearing) of arms. Are you aware of decisions in which the Supreme Court has overruled state restrictions on private gun ownership on Constitutional grounds?

And the thread drifts merrily along...

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 22 Jun 01 - 10:04 AM

Weapons of mass destruction such as nerve gas, bio and nuclear weapons - are instruments that were not envisaged by the framers of the consititution. It is true you and I refer to them as "weapons" but I believe a constitutional lawyer could succesfully argue that these instruments are NOT arms covered by 2nd ammendment rights. In deed, as you have pointed out, we have standing restrictions already on firearms (automatics, most clearly) that either not been challenged in Supreme Court or have been allowed by the Supreme Court. I really do not believe that there is a problem with my logic at all. The restrictions are already in place, and coexisting without conflict with the second ammendment.

It is clear that the technology has advanced significantly beyond the simple language of the ammendment, and that court decisions in the future will have to determine just how it should be applied in specific test cases. Again, I don't beleive it will be struck down, in the near future, but gun control advocates may win further victories with a more left leaning court (if there is a swing in that direction in the future).

I actually urge a constitutional law arguement rather then a court manipulation because this is an important issue. It is a significant personal freedom and changes to it will have long lasting effect to future generations. If we are to make changes to this right; we ought to do it at a highly involved socially aware level. We should not allow a strong vocal and highly organized minority make major changes without full public awareness. Consititutional law requires are a deep public involvment - and would guarantee public awareness.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 Jun 01 - 10:47 AM

So far, we're not talking about changes -- we're talking about differing interpretations of the existing language. I wouldn't mind a change, because we could substitute less ambiguous language in place of the existing language that gives rise to such divergent interpretations. But I recognize the difficulty of passing a Constitutional Amendment (remember the ERA?), particularly when we're talking about changing the Bill of Rights, which most people in this country consider to be close to sacred. Maybe it should happen, but it isn't likely in the near future. So I'm not yet willing to concede that a Constitutional Amendment is required for my interpretation to be effective; I think my interpretation is sound based on the existing language. I would suggest that, if you want your interpretation to prevail, you seek an amendment to get rid of the reference to "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and just retain the remaining language.

I think you'd have a problem with your argument that nuclear, biological, and chemical arms were not envisioned by the framers, therefore they aren't covered by the Second Amendment. The framers dealt primarily with single-shot, black powder muzzle-loaders, and never envisioned most of the modern weapons that are now in circulation. [However, it is interesting to speculate what would happen if a modern militia relied on these weapons to resist oppression by the U.S. government.] Moreover, the framers never envisioned radio, television, or any of the other modern tools of mass-communication, but it is generally recognized (and the courts have consistently ruled) that the First Amendment applies to them.

Anyway, this has been enjoyable and enlightening -- hope you feel the same. Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jun 01 - 02:47 PM

Whistle: You remind me a bit of the folks who accept only a literal translation of the Bible. And I do not mean that remark to be an unkindly one. It just seems to me that you are splitting hairs a bit.

I think the framers were thinking of the muskets you mentioned when they wrote the Constitution. I doubt any of them considered that there would ever be any nuclear weapons, hence no need to allow for them one way or the other.

When I think of the type modern day weapons covered by the Second Amendment I think of a hunting rifle, shotgun or pistol. BARS, Tommy Guns and the like don't come to mind.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jun 01 - 04:50 PM

Yes, but Doug, is what comes to YOUR mind the measure of what "weapons" the Amendment applies to?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 22 Jun 01 - 05:41 PM

yes WS - good discussion. We agree to disagree, and we'll see what happens over the coming years.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jun 01 - 11:35 PM

Alex: the arguments I have heard in favor of the right to bear arms related only to the types of weapons I referred to. Have you heard of any individual picketing to put a missle in his garage?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: MAV
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 09:40 AM

and I wouldn't favor anyone owning a nuclear bomb (especially Kendall).

DougR

Dear Doug,

Kendall told me he has the bomb...he keeps it in his guitar.

Are you saying it's currently against the law to own a nuke? or a Fleet of F-16s?, an M-1 Abrhams Tank?

Most any farmer has tons of nitrogen based fertilizer and diesel fuel.

There is the "well regulated militia" (national guard) then there is "the militia" (able bodied men).

Have all you "able bodied men" procured and properly maintained your arms and ammo?

Why not?

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 01:33 PM

Doug that's not the question under discussion. The question is, what does the 2nd amendment to the constitution MEAN, not is there someone suing to test whether or not it means that.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 01:46 PM

We could simply issue everyone their own personal nuclear weapon, so as to achieve parity, and the warm feeling of emotional security that comes from being prepared at all times...

Of course, it could get dicey if the guy next door got depressed and decided to blow himself up.

What the hell, no system's perfect! :-)

Now let's see, was this the "Cold War" thread, or...?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 02:18 PM

Oh. Is that what we are discussing, Alex? Thank you for straightening me out. And here I thought the thread was all about choosing a candidate to run against Bush next go-around. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 02:33 PM

OOOOOH. Yeah, that was the original topic of the thread. I can see how you might be confused!

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 05:11 PM

It's a puzzlement, Alex.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 02:39 PM

'Twas me that hijacked this thread, after Ted Nugent's name came up and people started talking about his support for the right to own guns. Blame me for not being able to resist temptation.

Doug, I appreciate your comments. I think the difference between me and the people who interpret the Bible literally is the fact that we're discussing a different document. Most modern-day readers recognize that the Bible is full of poetry and metaphor, and that substantial portions of it were not intended to be taken literally. By contrast, the Constitution IS meant to be taken literally -- otherwise, evaluating laws based on their Constitutionality would be impossible. As this discussion demonstrates, that can still be difficult, but I really don't believe the framers intended the Second Amendment to serve as a metaphor.

If the consensus were that the Second Amendment applies only to "arms" as they existed in the 18th century, we would be having a very different discussion here. You would insist on your right to carry a musket, and I would insist that you limit yourself to a musket -- single-shot, muzzle-loading (if you could show me they had breech-loaders in the 18th century, I might let you get away with that), etc. But once you move beyond 18th-century technology, it seems to me that your arguments are weak -- unless you are willing to bring the discussion up to the present-day, and include all of the armaments that we currently are capable of producing. Drawing the line somewhere in between, with no reference to the Constitutional logic behind your decision, seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Also, I have to say (again) that the whole argument about citizens being armed so they can resist the power of a despotic government seems pretty silly to me if we're not going to allow both sides in this theoretical dispute to possess the same kind of firepower. It's a nice romantic notion that farmers with hunting rifles are going to triumph over helicopter squadrons, "smart bombs," and the rest of the stuff the government can throw at you when they get serious. But firepower matters, and anyone who figures that a 30/30 and a righteous cause will decide the issue is in for a rude awakening.

As Jed said, we can agree to disagree. Pleasure chatting with you -- WS

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 05:15 PM

Okay, I'm guilty for bringing up Ted Nugent.

I learned an interesting thing on my vacation to Williamsburg. Royal Governor Dunmore, on the eve of the Revolution, ordered all the gunpowder removed from the Magazine. (for those who don't know, because I didn't, a magazine is where they keep the gunpowder and the guns.)

Because of this he had to leave Williamsburg in the dead of night, under cover of darkness.

Never trust anyone who wants to take away your weapons. Disarmament is the first step to subjugation. We did it with the Indians, and a little man named Hitler did it to Germany.

Now then. Who else will run for President?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 06:41 PM

I brought up Ralph Nader, but nobody mentioned Ford Pintos!

Let's get this train back on track. I nominate Mrs. Ralph Nader (there IS one isn't there?)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: JedMarum
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 09:02 PM

... never say die, Doug!

I'll second that Nader nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: thosp
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 09:11 PM

Nader works for me! but i'm afraid you guys have different motives for chosing him

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: thosp
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 09:15 PM

ooooops missed that Doug --- no there isn't a Mrs.Ralph Nader ----

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 11:02 PM

The first clause of the amendment (A well regulated militia being necessary ...a free state") is an introductory clause, not a defining part of the law; it explains a priori conditions for a decision but are not part of the decision, logically. In the sentence "Because people need fresh air and exercise, I will never force you to take the schoolbus rather than walk to school." you would scarcely conclude that there was no other possible reason for permitting (x) to walk to school; nor would you conclude that the speaker was decreeing that people needed fresh air and exercise; neither would you interpret it to mean that the permission would only hold true as long as people were thought to. The explanatory context is an observation preceding a conclusion, but the conclusion stands, as a legal mandate, all on its own: the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is some implication of context but it is in no way construable as a part of the legal conclusion.

I have no desire to bear arms, and never have -- but I sure as hell don't want that right compromised by someone who can't even understand plain English!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 26 Jun 01 - 08:21 AM

The English may be plain, Amos, but it still gives rise to different interpretations. I suspect that my command of the English language is every bit as good as yours; you certainly may argue the merits of my position, but I think your claim that I lack a basic understanding of the English language is over-reaching.

If the clause about a well regulated militia is merely intended as an introductory observation, then why are the other amendments not preceded by such observations? Shouldn't the First Amendment, for example, include some introductory observation about why it's important to have free speech? Knowing how intense were the debates over the language of the Constitution and the original ten amendments, should we be so quick to dismiss this language?

For the record, I spent eight years in the US military, where I qualified as an expert on the M16 rifle, .45 caliber automatic, and 9 mm pistol. I enjoyed shooting, and I took an oath to bear arms in defense of my country. Since leaving the military, I have spent most of my adult life writing, interpreting, and enforcing federal and state regulations (in English, no less). I think I am as qualified as any other layman to interpret the language of the Second Amendment. Let's skip the disparaging comments, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: GUEST,Kim C must reset cookie
Date: 26 Jun 01 - 10:37 AM

So just who are "the people" mentioned in the Constitution anyway? I always thought it was you and me. Why do we put conditions on "the people" in the Second Amendment but not the others? A militia is made up of "the people" anyhow.

Maybe we can dig up Teddy Roosevelt and get him to run. Or maybe we can dig up his DNA and clone him...

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 01:46 PM

We (Americans) are "the people". And we Americans who belong to well-regulated militias are entitled to keep and bear arms so as to provide for the "security of a free state". And militias that don't keep tight control of their weapons could hardly be considered "well regulated".

At this stage I'm not expecting to convince anyone that my interpretation is right, but I do note that nobody has yet offered much of a response to the inconsistencies I have pointed out in others' intepretations:

(1) If the Second Amendment applies to some arms that had not yet been invented in the 18th century (such as a .45 caliber automatic pistol, invented in the late 19th century), why doesn't it apply to others (such as a nuclear bomb, invented in the 1940's)? Is this just based on what certain individuals (Jed, Doug) consider reasonable? Why should their interpretation of "reasonableness" carry any more weight than mine?

(2) If we get past that hurdle, and decide that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep arms to protect them from a future despotic American government (but nothing more sophisticated than semi-automatic personal sidearms), how do these folks think they will prevail once the battle is joined in earnest?

(3) Since these individuals with their sidearms are certain to be outgunned by the hypothetical future oppressive government, can we really say that this interpretation is consistent with the intention of the framers of the Constitution? To put it another way, do we really think that the framers (who had some familiarity with military matters, and certainly knew there would continue to be advances in the technology of war) wanted to set "the people" up for such a devastating defeat?

The bottom line for me (as I prepare once again to descend from my soap box) is that talk about Second Amendment rights is fine as long as it is abstract, and sidesteps the hard questions. Once the practical implications are made real, the weakness of the Second Amendment arguments of gun rights activists becomes obvious. I believe that legitimate arguments can be made on both sides of the gun control debate, but those arguments aren't based on a reading of the Second Amendment that focuses on the second clause while effectively ignoring the first.

So who should run against Bush? How about we make it interesting, have Colin Powell to resign (presumably after a power struggle with Rumsfeld/Cheney), and then he can run against Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 03:01 PM

Lemme just say, that if a guy breaks into my house and he's got a weapon, which he probably will have, don't I have the right to defend myself on an equal level?

I think Colin Powell is one of those people who is too smart to want to be President.

My money's on Jesse Ventura.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 03:05 PM

Jes-SEE! Jes-SEE! Jes-SEE! Jes-SEE!

I'd even vote for him.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: GUEST,SharonA
Date: 27 Jun 01 - 03:14 PM

Hmm... President Ventura... What a shame he didn't run for the office at the turn of the Century... At the inaugural ball, he could've danced the Continental... or would that have been too Cavalier?

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 02:02 AM

Well, Whistle Stop, I shot Expert with the M1, and couldn't hit the side of a barn with the Colt .45, the Carbine, or the Grease Gun. But what's that got to do with who is going to run against President Bush?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 08:11 AM

Kim, you raise a perfectly legitimate point. It just has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Doug, it is my fervent hope that guns will have no role in determining who becomes our next President.

Subject: RE: BS: Dubya vs. Whom in 04?
From: Kim C
Date: 28 Jun 01 - 09:49 AM

Defending myself doesn't have anything to do with my right to bear arms? Or bare arms? It gets hot in Tennessee in the summertime. Plus there's the question of what "arms" actually is. I have a bow and arrow too. Does that count?

Personally I hope there's some discussion about the right to arm bears. I don't think anyone would dare to cross a grizzly skilled in target shooting.