Leaderboard

Hope you don't mind the late response... been a little pressed for time lately. The government restricts our right to own and operate certain kinds of arms, but not arms in general. The government does not, and should not IMO, restrict a citizen's general right to own firearms or force citizens to "prequalify" (via certification) before we are allowed to exercise that right. Oddly enough, early intent was to allow citizens to own weapons suitable for military service. Now firearms that merely look like military weapons are prime targets for the gun-ban crowd. Grammatically speaking there are several way to interpret this. To paraphrase the arguments: The first phrase (a well regulated milita...) is the necessary precondition for the second phrase (the right to keep and bear arms...) In other words, the first phrase defines all the valid justifications for the right. When the first phrase is no longer applicable the right becomes invalid. This is a very cause-and-effect interpretation and I believe the one Bob espouses. The first phrase describes one, but not all, of the necessary preconditions for the right. Invalidating the first phrase does not invalidate the other (unnamed) justifications for the right, thus it remains intact. However, if it were possible to discover all the necessary preconditions and invalid them, the right becomes invalid. The first phrase does not describe a necessary precondition at all. It merely gives an example of why the right is included. If it were possible to invalidate all the possible examples of why the right is included, the right itself still remains intact. Revoking the right would require an amendment. My biases show through... interpretation 3 makes the most sense to me. Why? One reason is that, contrary to popular opinion, the second amedment doesn't actually confer citizens with any rights whatsoever. It prevents the government from infringing on a right that has already been presupposed. However, all of the interpretations have supporters and valid explanations for why their interpretation is the correct one. If people way smarter than me can't agree on the correct interpretation I'm fairly certain I don't understand all the nuances involved. I'm not a historian or constitutional scholar, but I don't believe this is correct. The revolutionary war ended in 1783. The bill of right was finalized in 1789 and ratified in 1791. Fighting the redcoats wasn't the issue. The debate at the time was over the division of power between the federal government and state governments. Some felt there was a need for a national army; others worried about ceeding too much power to the federal government. If you look at the bill of rights as a whole, it addresses specific activities an oppressive government might take in an attempt to control its citizens. It, as a whole, acts as a way to limit the power of the federal government and protect the citizens from oppression. It's not about protecting the nation (which at the time was more of a loose collection of independent states) from foreign invaders. Not true. I couldn't find any Supreme Court cases which even address the question of whether a militia for the common defense is a necessary precondition for the right until the recent DC v. Heller case. (In which the Supreme Court rejected interpretation #1 above.) Nearly all of the cases addressed the issue of whether the second amendment applies only to the federal government or if the states and individuals could violate another person's second amendment rights. Early cases held that the second amendment restrictions apply only to the federal government and not to states or individuals. (The first amendment was also limited to the federal government; however, the other amendments apparently were deemed to apply to the states as well as the federal government. Odd.) Modern (post 1890) interpretations of incorporation imply all the amendments apply to the states as well as the federal government. The question of incorporating the second amendment has not been specifically addressed yet. Not a convincing one. If the second amendment is indeed obsolete and no longer needed, the correct way to address it is by constitutional amendment, not by creating FUD. (I'm looking at the gun ban crowd and the Brady Campaign, not at you.) I fully agree with you here. Perhaps where we disagree is the point at which my right to own firearms infringes on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that my right to own, operate, and even carry a firearm does not, in and of itself, infringe on your right to happiness. How I use my firearms may infringe on your rights. If I'm in my backyard at 6 am shooting at crows with a shotgun, that infringes on your right. If I'm using a deer rifle to pick squirrels off my back fence without regard to the mall on the other side of the fence, that infringes on your right. If I get angry and shoot you, that infringes on your right. All of those things are already illegal and carry appropriate penalties. Implementing laws to prevent the possibility of infringing on another's right is a very dangerous game--one that is likely to backfire. (Incidentally, this is my main issue with the left in general. They seem to espouse legislation to insulate people from having anything "bad" happen to them. They seem to believe that through the proper legislation they can create an idyllic society where everyone is happy all the time. This is, I believe, a huge philosophical fallacy.)

I'd wager that none of us on this board have ever had any formal legal training. While we're certainly all entitled to our opinions, better-informed and more experienced minds have gone through these concepts at length. Mark, however much you might philosophically object to the concept of jury nullification, there is a long history behind the concept, predating the birth of the US and the creation of our constitution. I'll cite just two examples for consideration: District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, in Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972, saying: "[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law." In his writing on the subject, retired professor Kelley L. Ross commented: "If [judges and juries] were to... hold themselves powerless to disobey unjust and morally despicable laws, they should be told that "obeying orders" was not accepted as a defense in the Nazi war crime trials at Nuremberg."

(slowly shaking my head) Let's not lower this discussion to talking about "standards". This is about ethics. Science is the search for knowledge. Science is not the "truth" corrupt entities with an agenda want us to believe by manipulating data and facts for monetary and political gain.

In the spirit of the recent popular political threads, I'd like to offer my opinion of something that we can do to effect our system of government. I live in the US; I know that not all of us on LAVA do, so please bear with me (and, don't get me started about voting ). I was prompted to post this after reading a news article of a woman that was arrested for videoing <4 minutes of a birthday party, in a movie theater, and getting some of the movie in the shot. If her case goes to trial it will likely be before a jury of her peers, and that's the theme for this post. An article I'd like you to read begins with: and: My favorite quote in the article is: In order to offer a relevant example I'll explain a certain law that many of us have broken - "honest services fraud". You can Google it or look here. Anyway, here's a quote from the link: Now, imagine you're seated on a jury for a trial where the defendant is accused of something as ridiculous as these examples. You will (probably) be instructed by the judge that you must convict if you believe the defendant to be guilty of the charges. I'd vote to acquit, regardless, and think everybody should but doubt that they would because they don't know their right/obligation. The first article is worth reading. The problem with this attempt at improving the citizenry is that a person would be be rejected as a juror (and perhaps held in contempt) for expressing this belief. I don't have much confidence in our system of justice, but I don't have to be part of the problem. Remember: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

"During my service in the United State Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." -Al Gore, 4/9/1999 If George W. Bush had said the exact same thing the media and the moonbats would have gone nuts and howled in collective glee. Editorials would have gone on for months. Al Gore said this, and whether or not he was taken out of context doesn't matter. He said it. Al Gore was very instrumental in legislation that helped build the Internet infrastucture. Even taken out of context the quote is actually partially true. It just sounded silly and self-serving. That's why I use the quote and make fun of Al Gore for saying it.