Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiffav8
I'm glad to see you stand behind your post as I have. I am also glad to hear you ask about my answer. It's simple but probably not any more popular than my posting to Supersport. But I'm not really one to always do what's popular..it's not always right and right isn't always popular as the saying goes. As for the Boston thread..you'll have to accept that there was more going on than was obvious. Sorry, I know it's not an answer that brings resolve on that.
Yes I have read the Constitution. Thank you. Being curious as to why and how our founding fathers came about setting things up the way they did, I actually enjoy reading on the subject. Not an easy task they had and it took a lot of debate and give in order to finalize it.
My view on the 2nd is simple. It was setup as a means of balance. A way for the people to be balanced against their government.
What's my simple answer? It's not an answer to just the great gun debate A: Hold those who intentionally do harm accountable. I don't mean lock them up for years and years, while providing them with everything under the sun (our criminals seem to have it pretty good). I mean three strikes and your out...as in dead. Harsh I know, but I'm not talking about speeding tickets here. Strict punishment that is enforced works. B: People in general need to be more involved in their community...on every level. People need to be involved in their neighborhood as well as their local and state and programs. Basically a let's help each other attitude. There are some great programs out there that promote this, take the Big Bother, Big Sister program for example or the Boy/Girl Scouts. Even better would be people just doing it of their own accord. I know...kind of Bill and Ted-ish.
Our continuation isn't the problem. We are. History holds the answers if we care to pay attention to it. We need to be asking "why have things changed and how did we get to this point". That would mean that people would have to accept that their good intent was in fact the wrong way to resolve a problem. It would also mean that we as a society and individuals need to make a moral and just change.
I'm not the greatest with words, but that's my answer.
|
Thanks for the response Curtis. In regards to the discussion we are having about your initial response to SuperSport, I am afraid as gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I can admire someone who sticks to what they believe.
The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand.
The second amendment states "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"
When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.
Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.
On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned.
Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it.
I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.