Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
Norton! Good points per your post:
yes TGT
it IS indeed very clear that we in 2015 should respect and strictly adhere to exactly
what those guys over 200 years ago thought about stuff
like the fact that they thought owning slaves was perfectly fine and did so themselves
like how they wrote how "all men are created equal", except for black men
point being that they were men of their time, 230 years ago time
and some of what they wrote when they drafted the Preamble, Constitution and Declaration was good and some was just plain bad, and at least they were smart enough to realize
that they were not infallible and so they gave direction for change through Amendments
Of course, back in the 1700's, when the crazy man stepped into a room with an agenda of killing everyone in it, he only had single-shot weapons, which took a while to reload, & of course likly knives & a sword. Maybe Dr. Ben Carson is thinking of that when he advocates rushing the shooter.
Some of us are willing to admit much has changed in the last 200 + years, and we do need to seek new gun-regulation solutions.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Just curious: Do you have any idea what an "inalienable right" is or what the founders that wrote that amendment meant by it?
Oh, I know, you're not an "originalist," so who gives a crap what the founders meant by the amendment? We're in the brave new world in which we can reinterpret it to me whatever WE want it to mean.
Do what you will with it, but you change nothing about the inalienable right it RECOGNIZES and does NOT grant.
Lol, yeah I have an idea what it means. Con law classes and all that. To be honest, I was trolling a bit with that comment.
But It does provide some context for why that amendment was added. The truth is that we no longer need to kill Indians, redcoats and black people ourselves: we have the bureau of Indian affairs , the military, and cops to do that. I.e., guvmint. You can safely put away your guns now.
But as soon as someone starts talking about originalism as some kind of coherent legal doctrine, and pretend that we can actually begin to know what the several hundred 18th century minds who ratified the constitution actually thought and apply their supposed thinking to 21st century America, I know they have no idea what they are talking about.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
But It does provide some context for why that amendment was added.
Glad to hear you were trolling a bit.
But the "context" you mention doesn't work. We know from reading their many surrounding documents EXACTLY what they meant, and, more importantly, the timeless principles of government that grounded our founding documents.
"Context" does not mean "principles," and in response to your later point, the PRINCIPLES were not malleable. Those define the very nature of this government. Let those principles slide due to "context," and you no longer have a constitution AT ALL; you are left with the whims of the people at any given moment, which always tend toward subsuming rights under convenience and knee-jerk reactions.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
exactly what they meant because we have their writings? hmmm We have our writings here and plenty of folks still think most liberals want to take away all guns, no matter how many times we say that we don't. So please..
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
We have our writings here and plenty of folks still think most liberals want to take away all guns, no matter how many times we say that we don't. So please..
I certainly understand why you think that, but there is a big difference between groping around regarding what online, anonymous "personas" "mean" and the writings of guys that were intentionally grounded in philosophical principles that are indeed decipherable and understandable, such as the writings of John Locke.
If you want to give up every shred of literary objectivity, particularly about writers like Locke, then you are plunged into a morass of skepticism such that, really, you can't believe in anything. In that case, you have no reason to think you're engaging in an online discussion with real people who have real minds. In which case you have no reason to care about any of this. Etc.
Look, if you want to go "whole hog" at the level you are suggesting, then the phrase "the constitution" has NO referent. Either there is "enough" measure of objectivity for the document (not its paper representation) to have genuine and well-anchored meaning, or there is NOTHING to swear to uphold and protect, and Americans HAVE no real government. And don't confuse the goofballs in Washington with the government.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
The 2nd Amendment was most recently interpreted by a SCOTUS acting through a strongly political lens.
This current reading could be changed and probably will be changed in the future.
Vote, Gun Nutz Be Gone in 2016!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Jim, to my mind, you're pretty much out of the discussion. Y'all still bow to the Queen and such. The Canadian mindset and the American mindset on fundamental principles are something like apples and giraffes.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
The Vancouver area, despite being north of the 49th, has been a virtual war zone among gangs for several years. No mass killing but just the daily shootings that make it seem somewhat like my hometown, Baltimore!
Of course the ease of getting guns in the lower Mainland may have something to do with its southern neighbors...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
You just have to face up to it that tonight isn't your night.
No worries, and no cheap trick. Regardless of what you guys call your parliamentary democracy, you're monarchists deep in your souls. We're not.
Regardless of how you spin it, deep inside you believe that rights are granted by government. We believe that a small, foundational subset of rights can only be RECOGNIZED by (legitimate) government or ignored by (illegitimate) government.
you should stick to facts instead of resorting to prose.
I'd rather resort to prose than bullets. Don't you agree?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Don't let facts get in the way
Just as there are types of handshakes, there are types of bows. And the fact that some of our leaders are deeply confused doesn't change the ACTUAL facts.
Sheesh, really? Is THIS the level at which you're gonna snipe? If so, as I said, there's nothing to talk about.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
Québec is the longest running monarchical territory in North America.
It is older than Canada itself.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
Jim, to my mind, you're pretty much out of the discussion.
Translation: I can't refute your arguments, so you don't count.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Nationalist, monarchist, what's the difference?
We simply replaced a king with a flag. We send our productivity/money to the same corrupt machinery. We send our sons and daughters to die and murder in the grist mill fighting over the same malleable and arbitrary lines on maps.
The 2-A is nothing but a wedge issue. It's distraction to create division among us. No different than other nonsensical issues like gay marriage and abortion. The thieves at the top don't really care anymore about what firearms are in my closet anymore than they care about what gay people might marry.
We're all being played while the real crimes continue.... and it works.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
But the "context" you mention doesn't work. We know from reading their many surrounding documents EXACTLY what they meant, and, more importantly, the timeless principles of government that grounded our founding documents.
"Context" does not mean "principles," and in response to your later point, the PRINCIPLES were not malleable. Those define the very nature of this government. Let those principles slide due to "context," and you no longer have a constitution AT ALL; you are left with the whims of the people at any given moment, which always tend toward subsuming rights under convenience and knee-jerk reactions.
Wrong.
We have no idea what anyone truly intends. Politicians especially have been known to say one thing and do another, or do something for other reasons than the ones they articulate.
But even if we assume we we can ascertain what they intended from their writings we are really stuck with having to read writings, to the extent they exist, from 100s of authors, rartifying legislators, delegates, etc. We will never know what they meant, and in any case, it undoubtedly meant many things to many people then just as today. Only a few generations later their grandchildren fought a horrible largely war over its meaning: they couldn't agree either. The law is not so straightforward and figuring it out is not so simplistic or formulaic. So yes, "intent" can be useful, but it has severe limitations. And in any event, we would not want to live in the world the founders hoped to create the constitution, or vice versa. It is a cop out, though, to ignore the "well regulated militia' part of the second amendment. It is there for a reason.
Finally, Mb, foreigners such as Jim (sorry to call you a foreigner, I don't usually think of you that way) can provide a useful mirror for us to look into, and often see absurdities we don't. Canadians are probably our closest cousins culturally and historically. We can learn from them, and they can learn from us.
|
|
Gerg
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
Translation: I can't refute your arguments, so you don't count.
Gary gets the checkered flag.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
Monarchists indeed.
I get royally annoyed how over the top enamoured Americans get every time a regal womb plops out a purple prince. It so distracts from the critical coverage of the Bieber.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
I just got a royalty check for natural gas wells down in Live Oak County, Texas.
$14.66
Yeah baby!
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
What a windfall, what are you gonna do in retirement?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
I think we are more successful when we are pragmatic instead of stubbornly principled on either side of an issue.. There's many checks and balances in the constitution to prevent changes that are not well thought out so I'm not very worried about our rights being infringed much. And there's usually a path back. Look at prohibition.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0
The link above is just a sample of mass killings, not gang violence, but gives some insight into preventing more tragedies.
For me I see:
1. We need better mental health care
2. We need to shore up the existing backgrounds checks so people convicted of a violent crime can't get guns
3. For people who have never been convicted of a crime they will probably always be able to get guns.
4. If a friend or relative commits a crime with your gun you should be held responsible for providing a gun.
5. Whenever there's a red flag, e.g. People talking to a radical cleric or people thrown out of a school for violent tendencies, but they haven't committed a crime so they can still buy a gun. We should have counselors like suicide protection workers who follow up with these people and try to talk them down or refer them to more help before another tragedy. See 1.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!