Gun Control

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Amendment II of the US Constitution (part of the "Bill of Rights") reads in full:

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.

A protracted debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment, its relevance to modern times, and its scope, has polarized American society.

Recent Supreme Court decisions on gun control include:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) The Court held that the right to own guns is

unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

by interpreting "Militia" to mean simply

all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

Heller reversed

United States v. Miller (1939) in which the Court held that the prohibited firearm in question had no

reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In U.S. v. Lopez (1995) the Court held that, while Congress does have power to regulate gun possession, that power does not emanate from the Commerce Clause (Art. I, sec. 8)


Because John Greg is bored with this topic, we are asked to discuss it here.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Ascertaining the Framers' original intent is essential to interpreting the Constitution; turning to their external writing for insight an established practice.

To placate fears that a large federal army would infringe on civil liberties, the Framers argued that the militia comprised of the armed citizenry would prevent that threat. Contemplating a standing army of no more than 30,000, Madison, who drafted the 2nd Amendment,saw in opposition

... a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

Jefferson added:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

It is quite clear that the Framers intended the individual right to bear arms as the means of maintaining a "well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms," (Madison) as a check to tyranny.


Therefore:
1) The premise, that the right to bear arms is "unconnected with service in a militia" rather primarily for "self-defense within the home" (Scalia) is false;

2) The arms must be of sufficient strength to successfully resist the standing Federal military. In the 18th century, muskets and smoothbore cannon were sufficient. Today, individuals should be permitted to keep and bear SAMs, ToWs, etc.

[Guestus Aurelius]

I think I disagree with the first half of your conclusion #1, but it depends on what you think Scalia means by "unconnected with."

Let me simplify that: I think I agree with the first part of Scalia's statement that you quote in your conclusion #1, but it depends on what he means by "unconnected with."

If by "unconnected with" he means "not contingent on," then I agree with him. If by "unconnected with" he means "in the Framers' conception unrelated to," then I disagree.

Your conclusion #2 is strictly speaking correct in my view, but the trouble is that you might as well add nuclear bombs to the list.

The Second Amendment needs updating.

[Guestus Aurelius]

I think even a new Amendment that simply defines "arms" could do the trick.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I think I agree with the first part of Scalia's statement that you quote in your conclusion #1, but it depends on what he means by "unconnected with."

If by "unconnected with" he means "not contingent on," then I agree with him. If by "unconnected with" he means "in the Framers' conception unrelated to," then I disagree.

I've read Scalia's parsing of the twenty-eight words of the amendment, and it would confuse even Derrida. AFAICT, he claims that, because the right is an individual right (which no one disputes), the bearing of arms was primarily for self-defense, with the militia part a nice side benefit. Scalia totally ignores the copious commentary on the purpose of the amendment by the Framers, by other Federalists, and by anti-federalists, that the perceived need for a militia was the paramount driving force behind crafting the amendment.

Your conclusion #2 is strictly speaking correct in my view, but the trouble is that you might as well add nuclear bombs to the list.

The Second Amendment needs updating.

My point, exactly. Further, since a citizen militia is no longer sufficient to protect our liberties over-grasping govt, new protections are needed.

[Guestus Aurelius]

I think I agree with the first part of Scalia's statement that you quote in your conclusion #1, but it depends on what he means by "unconnected with."

If by "unconnected with" he means "not contingent on," then I agree with him. If by "unconnected with" he means "in the Framers' conception unrelated to," then I disagree.

I've read Scalia's parsing of the twenty-eight words of the amendment, and it would confuse even Derrida. AFAICT, he claims that, because the right is an individual right (which no one disputes), the bearing of arms was primarily for self-defense, with the militia part a nice side benefit. Scalia totally ignores the copious commentary on the purpose of the amendment by the Framers, by other Federalists, and by anti-federalists, that the perceived need for a militia was the paramount driving force behind crafting the amendment.

Yeah, he has that wrong.

Back then, to "bear arms" almost always meant to arm oneself for combat as part of an army or militia (a Google Books search of the phrase bears this out). So it's not entirely clear that the "right" to "bear arms" entitles citizens to walk around packing heat for shits and giggles or even for personal self-defense. And then what about the word "keep"? Did that mean to "own," to "hold," or to "store"? It makes a difference.

Semantic ambiguity there may be, but grammatical ambiguity there is not: regardless of the Framers' motivations, the "right" they enshrined is not contingent on anything in the first clause. Scalia's wrong about many things, but he's right about that much.

IIRC, Justice Stevens argued that the "right" is contingent on service in the "well regulated militia" of the first clause. That strikes me as a blatant and willful parsing error.

[Guestus Aurelius]

For the record, I think we should err on the side of expanding rights, not contracting them. Despite the aforementioned semantic ambiguity, the case is far from conclusive that "to keep and bear arms" excludes packing for, say, hunting or self-defense. It's quite a stretch, actually.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

For the record, I think we should err on the side of expanding rights, not contracting them. Despite the aforementioned semantic ambiguity, the case is far from conclusive that "to keep and bear arms" excludes packing for, say, hunting or self-defense. It's quite a stretch, actually.

If a weapon is kept primarily or exclusively for hunting or home defense, without contributing to the maintenance of a militia, it does not fall under the protection. We may permit or prohibit its possession as we wish.

Scalia argued that handguns are exactly the type of weapon the Framers had in mind. Why? Because handguns are popular today for home defense. Of course, in 1787, pistols were unusual, unreliable. Most people owned a musket; a few hunters perhaps a rifle.

Heller complained that the DC trigger lock provision made a handgun "inoperable". I'm not familiar with the details of the DC law, but I wonder if Heller ever operated a muzzle-loading smoothbore?


The 2nd Amdt. no longer serves its original purpose of protecting us from tyranny. Only through specious word games can it be twisted to support the present-day desire of many to grant citizens the unconditional right to own guns. We need a new amendment or two.

[John Greg]

I know I am wholly biased, and without calm objectivity on this issue, but nonetheless, in my opinion, all weapons whose primary purpose is to kill people should be outlawed and banned altogether -- with exceptions, which is a long and hoary and difficult subject for another day, but which involves serious professional training as its most important codocil.

Clubs, maces, spears, bows and arrows, guns, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, have been created, as their fundamental and primary purpose, to kill other human beings. Full stop -- unless you want to play sophistry and rhetorical games, there are no other fundmental purposes/reasons for the existence of such weapons.

Humans are one of the most violent, kill happy species on the planet. If you dispute that, then you really do not know your history.

Yes, sometimes, True Believers will argue that there are other purposes such as, ahem, home defence, target practice, hunting, and so on and so forth, but for the most part that is just a variation on Chuck Heston bullshit rationalization. In my opinion, if you really want a gun, fuck you. It's juvenile kiddy bang funnsies time and you might as well just go buy some squibs.

Guns: fuck 'em.

:violin:

[Guestus Aurelius]

For the record, I think we should err on the side of expanding rights, not contracting them. Despite the aforementioned semantic ambiguity, the case is far from conclusive that "to keep and bear arms" excludes packing for, say, hunting or self-defense. It's quite a stretch, actually.

If a weapon is kept primarily or exclusively for hunting or home defense, without contributing to the maintenance of a militia, it does not fall under the protection. We may permit or prohibit its possession as we wish.

I'll grant that you can at least make that case if the argument is that "to keep and bear arms" on its own was understood to imply the stipulation "for the purpose of serving in a militia." I hope you'll agree, though, that since that argument rests on the Founders' having used implicit rather than explicit language in this case—not the norm for the Constitution or for legal documents in general, wherein specificity is for many reasons crucial and expected—the burden of proof should be on those making the argument.

Although "bear arms" was indeed typically used in a military sense, counterexamples can be found (as in this translation of Don Quixote). Furthermore, "bear" and "arms" were common words, and the literal rendering "carry weapons" makes perfect sense in the context of the Second Amendment; to the extent that "bear arms" can be labeled an idiom implying a strictly military context, it's an idiom different in kind than, say, "drop me a line" or "break a leg," whose literal renderings make no sense at all in the contexts in which they're used. This is an important point, especially considering that the Constitution is a formal legal document and that many of the Founders were demonstrably quite sensitive to nuances of language.

Also there's that pesky word "keep," and nobody argues that "to keep arms" was used idiomatically in a military sense. One would have to insist on a narrow definition of "keep" to interpret "the right to keep ... arms" as excluding keeping them on one's person. Here, for instance, is an example from 1739 where "keep arms" implies that very sense.

In short, it's far from conclusive that "to keep and bear arms" on its own implicitly carried the stipulation "for the purpose of serving in a militia." Given that the raison d’être of the Bill of Rights is to expand the rights of the people and to limit the powers of the government, isn't it counterintuitive and even unreasonable to interpret any original amendment as constraining the rights of the people if the case therefor isn't rock solid?

Now, if the argument is instead that the "well regulated militia" of the amendment's first clause places a condition on the "right" in the second clause, consider that the Founders could have written the sentence any number of other ways to make that condition explicit. For instance:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

or

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of serving in said militia shall not be infringed."

But they didn't. The people's right is simply "to keep and bear arms."

Have you seen Eugene Volokh's paper on the relative commonness of "X being the case" absolute constructions in laws of the era? There's no evidence that in such laws the subordinate clause was understood to set limits on the imperative content of the independent clause. Here: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

Yes, the "militia" was probably the Founders' primary motivation for the Second Amendment. Evidence for that comes both from the amendment's first clause and from other documents written by the Founders.* But in wording the Second Amendment, they used a familiar sentence structure that unambiguously does not make the "right" contingent on anything in the first clause. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" stands on its own. Isn't it safe to assume that the Founders were literate? It's hard to imagine that the wording wasn't deliberated.

*(though I'd add that several 18th- and early 19th-century state constitutions [Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont] specifically included self-defense provisions, so it's clear that the "militia" wasn't the sole motivation; source: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm).

[Guestus Aurelius]

I know I am wholly biased, and without calm objectivity on this issue, but nonetheless, in my opinion, all weapons whose primary purpose is to kill people should be outlawed and banned altogether -- with exceptions, which is a long and hoary and difficult subject for another day, but which involves serious professional training as its most important codocil.

Clubs, maces, spears, bows and arrows, guns, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, have been created, as their fundamental and primary purpose, to kill other human beings. Full stop -- unless you want to play sophistry and rhetorical games, there are no other fundmental purposes/reasons for the existence of such weapons.

Humans are one of the most violent, kill happy species on the planet. If you dispute that, then you really do not know your history.

Yes, sometimes, True Believers will argue that there are other purposes such as, ahem, home defence, target practice, hunting, and so on and so forth, but for the most part that is just a variation on Chuck Heston bullshit rationalization. In my opinion, if you really want a gun, fuck you. It's juvenile kiddy bang funnsies time and you might as well just go buy some squibs.

Guns: fuck 'em.

:violin:

In the US, we really do need stricter gun control IMO. I'm in favor of gun rights, but they should be limited and regulated.

The trouble is that I also strongly favor the rule of law over the rule of men. The Constitution is imperfect but there's good reason to fear that flouting it is a slippery slope. Better, I think, to change it via a new amendment.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Quick follow-up:

Here is an example of "bearing arms" that specifically signifies "carrying weapons"

Here is a dictionary from 1770 where "armed" is defined as "bearing arms," with an armed ship(!) given as an example

Here is an example from the early 1700s where "bearing arms" is distinguished from "the violence of arms" (a paper I cited back on the main thread claimed that "bearing arms" necessarily implied fighting as a soldier)

Here is a 1760 translation of Montesquieu that speaks in a general sense of "the right of bearing arms, and of being thereby enabled to use violence"

The implications of "bearing arms" weren't quite as cut-and-dry as some have made them out to be. The words could be (and occasionally were) used and rendered more literally, without implying actual combat or participation in a militia.

And again, even if we granted that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment specifically referred to fighting as part of a militia, the right of the people is not just to bear arms but "to keep and bear arms." I suppose one could argue that this means that citizens are entitled to store their weapons safely at home until they need to "bear" them as soldiers with a militia, but isn't that a rather specific meaning? Where's the evidence? If the Founders wanted to convey that sense, wouldn't they have chosen a less polysemous word like "stock" or "store"? "Keep" had (and still has) several overlapping definitions.

[Guestus Aurelius]

P.S.

The supposed "fighting in a militia" implication of "bear arms" may actually have been something simpler, along the lines of "carrying a weapon one intends or is prepared to use." It could just be that most written examples of the phrase back then occurred in military contexts. Hell, a Google Books search demonstrates that even the word "arms" (by itself) appeared mostly in contexts that relate to the military or official heraldry—only a minority of results seem to relate to weapons in a more general or unofficial sense. Assuming I'm using good data (I could be way off here), then it's not at all surprising that the same is true of the phrase "bear arms." Concluding that it's an idiom is neither necessary nor parsimonious in that case.

Here (PDF) is the link to that paper that claims (quite confidently) that "bear arms" was an idiom with unambiguously military implications. One can read through the relevant section (pp. 18–27) and decide for oneself whether the more general "carrying a weapon one intends or is prepared to use" implication I've suggested can be substituted into the authors' examples. My impression is that it can. It's also consistent with the non-military-specific examples, which, according to the authors of that paper, are exceptions that semantically "bend" the idiom. Maybe they're right, but I'm not so sure (even though they seem to be).

If nothing else it's certainly an interesting question.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I know I am wholly biased, and without calm objectivity on this issue, but nonetheless, in my opinion, all weapons whose primary purpose is to kill people should be outlawed and banned altogether -- with exceptions, which is a long and hoary and difficult subject for another day, but which involves serious professional training as its most important codocil.

Clubs, maces, spears, bows and arrows, guns, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, have been created, as their fundamental and primary purpose, to kill other human beings. Full stop -- unless you want to play sophistry and rhetorical games, there are no other fundmental purposes/reasons for the existence of such weapons.

Humans are one of the most violent, kill happy species on the planet. If you dispute that, then you really do not know your history.

Yes, sometimes, True Believers will argue that there are other purposes such as, ahem, home defence, target practice, hunting, and so on and so forth, but for the most part that is just a variation on Chuck Heston bullshit rationalization. In my opinion, if you really want a gun, fuck you. It's juvenile kiddy bang funnsies time and you might as well just go buy some squibs.

Guns: fuck 'em.

:violin:

Handguns are made for killing; they ain't no good for nothin' else. And if you like your whiskey, you might even shoot yourself.

But, as any assburger will happily point out several times, unrestricted handgun ownership is currently the law (US). If you don't like that, either write an amendment, or get new judges.

I will add that most of the rationales given for gun ownership are specious or downright delusional. IMO, it's usually about inchoate fear and a sense of powerlessness.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'll grant that you can at least make that case if the argument is that "to keep and bear arms" on its own was understood to imply the stipulation "for the purpose of serving in a militia." I hope you'll agree, though, that since that argument rests on the Founders' having used implicit rather than explicit language in this case....

OMFG! You're Antonin Scalia and Wonderist's love child!

Give me a moment while I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights:
:suimouth:

One simple question: why mention the need for a well-regulated militia in the first place, if the right being conferred is not contingent upon that? There must be a substantive difference between:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and

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.

You and your dad seem to be arguing there is no difference.

[Guestus Aurelius]

I'll grant that you can at least make that case if the argument is that "to keep and bear arms" on its own was understood to imply the stipulation "for the purpose of serving in a militia." I hope you'll agree, though, that since that argument rests on the Founders' having used implicit rather than explicit language in this case....

One simple question: why mention the need for a well-regulated militia in the first place, if the right being conferred is not contingent upon that?

Already answered that. It's an explanatory absolute construction, not at all uncommon in contemporaneous state constitutions.

One simple question: why do you insist that a sentence that is grammatically unambiguous doesn't mean exactly what it says?

Okay, two simple questions: Why must this particular "X being the case" clause really mean "As long as condition X is met," when that's never what that type of clause actually means?

Your argument seems to be: "I can't wrap my mind around why they'd write the Amendment that way, so they must not have really meant it."

There must be a substantive difference between:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and

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.

Okay, more questions...

Why do you insist that there must be a "substantive" difference? Why can't the difference be exactly what any native English speaker would understand it to be—namely, that first clause provides a reason for the right enshrined in the second clause?

OMFG! You're Antonin Scalia and Wonderist's love child!

Give me a moment while I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights:
:suimouth:

Ah, yes, because I think Scalia is right about this one point, I'm just like him. :lol:

Do you honestly think the Founders didn't understand basic English grammar? Do you really think they didn't deliberate about the wording of the Second Amendment?

Do you actually have an argument?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Ah, yes, because I think Scalia is right about this one point, I'm just like him. :lol:

Do you honestly think the Founders didn't understand basic English grammar? Do you really think they didn't deliberate about the wording of the Second Amendment?

Do you actually have an argument?[/quote]
Well at least we agree, unlike some, that the semantics do matter.

I've read Clausewitz (that's not a pun) in German, and he's full of sentence construct like the one in 2A. I don't know the technical linguistic terms, but he doesn't make sense unless you treat all those clauses as dependent (??). So that's how I approach the writing of his near contemporaries, albeit in a different language.

My argument:
In the Bill of Rights, along with the right to keep & bear arms, we have sixteen or so other rights regarding:
* free exercise of religion
* freedom of speech & of the press
* peaceable assembly
* petition for redress of grievances
* quartering of troops
* unreasonable search & seizure
* grand jury indictments
* double jeopardy
* bearing witness against oneself
* due process
* just compensation for confiscation of private property
* speedy and public trial
* trial by jury
* excessive bail, cruel & unusual punishment

Not one of them is predicated with a qualifier, as is the right to bear arms. The Framers were exceedingly parsimonious with words; they never adorned their prose. One must therefore assume that the Framers put the well-regulated militia clause in for a reason: namely, to have a qualifying effect.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Fair enough, MC.

[John Greg]

Matt C said (my emphasis):

I will add that most of the rationales given for gun ownership are specious or downright delusional. IMO, it's usually about inchoate fear and a sense of powerlessness.

Good point.

[Mr Radio]

The Second Amendment needs updating.

No, it doesn't. The last thing the Constitution needs is a change made to it. A change to any part of it will weaken it as a whole -- an elastic Constitution is a rubber stamp Constitution.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The Second Amendment needs updating.

No, it doesn't. The last thing the Constitution needs is a change made to it. A change to any part of it will weaken it as a whole -- an elastic Constitution is a rubber stamp Constitution.

It's been amended twenty-six times -- average once every 8 years.

[Mr Radio]

Your statement implies that changes are made to it as frequently as every eight years and we both know that isn't so. My statement still stands -- anyone can argue that it may not be a perfect constitution, but it's carried us through for this long and considering everything that means it's doing a bang-up job (no pun intended) and doesn't need to be tampered with for any reason.

[John Greg]

... but it's carried us through for this long....

That is a wholly meaningless statement; empty rhetoric. Try and describe precisely what you mean by that: Carried what? Carried who? Where? Through what? How? How long? etc.

What does that even mean?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Your statement implies that changes are made to it as frequently as every eight years and we both know that isn't so. My statement still stands -- anyone can argue that it may not be a perfect constitution, but it's carried us through for this long and considering everything that means it's doing a bang-up job (no pun intended) and doesn't need to be tampered with for any reason.

Obviously, there were at least 26 reasons.

Even more persuasive against your position is the fact that the amendments have often come in bunches -- times when the people realized the document had stagnated and required far-reaching revisions.

Come clean -- what part don't you want touched, & why?

[Mr Radio]

... but it's carried us through for this long....

That is a wholly meaningless statement; empty rhetoric. Try and describe precisely what you mean by that: Carried what? Carried who? Where? Through what? How? How long? etc.

What does that even mean?

I had no idea that parsing "The Constitution has served us so well all of these years" out of my previous statement would be impossible for some. Either that or you're taking the postmodern approach to attacking my statement, which I find hilarious.

Come clean -- what part don't you want touched, & why?

All of it. Why? Because it wouldn't be a Constitution if it were as elastic as you want it to be. Your criticisms of how it needs to be "updated" -- that is, its foundation altered, keeping with the topic of gun control here (and to curtail the inevitable sidetracking regarding human rights, suffrage, etc) -- is myopic, and the exact reason why the authors of it made it so difficult to alter. What you perceive as "keeping with the times" is what they rightly understood as "here we go again." There's nothing new under the sun in other words, and an altering of the current constitution to "keep with the times" will have a detrimental effect on itself as a whole and the ideals that this country were originally founded on.

[Mr Radio]

And if my previous post wasn't clear enough, I'm talking about the altering of a current amendment to the Constitution. I'm not criticizing the addition of amendments such as the 13th, the 14th, the 24th, and so on. So if you're planning on trotting out that particular strawman, put it back in the field where you found it.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

And if my previous post wasn't clear enough, I'm talking about the altering of a current amendment to the Constitution. I'm not criticizing the addition of amendments such as the 13th, the 14th, the 24th, and so on. So if you're planning on trotting out that particular strawman, put it back in the field where you found it.

The most I can extract from your obtuse responses is, you believe the first 26 amendments have brought the Constitution into a state of perfection; any future amendments would diminish it.

Not only is this a bizarre, asinine conclusion, it goes against the intentions of the Framers, who provided a mechanism for revision and expected it would be used as circumstances dictated.


I've stated above why an amendment re. gun ownership is required: 2A neither serves it original purpose, nor, as written, protects private gun ownership. But I also see room for improvement in other areas.

* I'd like an amendment that grants constitutional rights to individuals only, not artificial entities like corporations,

* I'd like one that reads: "Congress shall pass no law compelling the people to engage in commerce."

* The electoral college no longer functions as intended -- probably never did. It's unpopular with most Americans, and promotes partisan extremism. Strike it.

* SC justices were given lifetime appointments in an era when people did not live nearly as long as they do now. I'd consider lengthy, but limited terms.

[Mr Radio]

The most I can extract from your obtuse responses is, you believe the first 26 amendments have brought the Constitution into a state of perfection; any future amendments would diminish it.

Then it's obvious that you didn't read what I wrote. I said that tampering with the current Constitution will diminish it. I never once said that an amendment would diminish anything (strawman #1) -- in fact I made quite an effort to get this point across and even made a followup post to drive said point home, which you even quoted, but unsurprisingly it still managed to fly right past you. You also say that I said that the Constitution is perfect (strawman #2): I never said this. The 11th and 16th Amendments are evidence that it's far from perfect. What I said that it shouldn't be tampered with, and gave my reason why.

Not only is this a bizarre, asinine conclusion,

It is, isn't it? That's because it's the same strawman (#3) I was telling you not to bother dragging out but you did anyway. I should have known that I'd have to break this down Barney-style so here it goes:

The 11th Amendment: Nobody knows what the hell this means, but it's something about suing the entire state if the state lets you. Or not. I'll be honest, I don't know how to classify this one but to be charitable I'll say that it deprives a right.
The 12th Amendment: The Electoral College. Considered insidious and oppressive by the losing party of every presidential election, subject to change to support when they win. No restrictions of freedom or rights here despite what the losing party says.
The 13th Amendment: Abolition of slavery. Expands upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 14th Amendment: Civil Rights. Expands upon/Guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 15th Amendment: Black Suffrage, another expansion upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 16th Amendment: Income Tax, further proof that nothing is perfect -- but no restrictions of freedom or rights here.
The 17th Amendment: States now have two more slimy politicians to suffer and vote themselves pay raises. But, again -- no restrictions of freedom or rights here.
The 18th Amendment: Prohibition of Liquor, and the first (and only) amendment to set in place to restrict freedom. 31 million Americans immediately stop drinking, except for the 31 million Americans who didn't stop drinking.
The 19th Amendment: Women's Suffrage, a expansion upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 20th Amendment: Terms of office for the President and VP. No restriction of freedom or rights here.
The 21st Amendment: The one amendment that restricted freedom is itself restricted.
The 22nd Amendment: Term limits for the President. No restriction of freedom or rights here.
The 23rd Amendment: Washington, DC gets too big for its britches, thinks it's better than every other city, gets its own reps. If there's a restriction of freedom or rights here then I don't see it, but I'm sure Baltimore isn't happy about this one bit.
The 24th Amendment: Abolition of Poll Taxes, an expansion upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 25th Amendment: Presidential succession. No restriction of rights and freedom.
The 26th Amendment: If 18 year olds can die for their country, they can vote. But not drink. Unless you're in the Marines. And only when the CO authorizes it. (This is true btw, dunno about the other branches of the service.) A expansion upon/guarantee of rights and freedom.
The 27th Amendment: Congressional pay raises. No restriction of rights or freedom here.

# of amendments which expand upon/guarantee a right or freedom: 6
# of amendments which curtail a right/freedom: 21
# of amendments that have nothing to do with curtailing rights/freedoms: 8
# of amendments that revoke a previous amendment that restricts a right/freedom: 1
# of amendments that establish an income tax: 1 (boo!)

Do you see the trend at work here? Do you now see why I don't have a problem with the 17 amendments as they are? Not all of them are agreeable, but you can't expect everything to turn out perfectly ideal. And if for some reason America comes across another reason to create another amendment that further expands upon our freedoms and/or limits government, I probably won't have a single problem with that either.

What I do have a problem with is anyone going in and tampering with what we've already set in place for the Constitution. I've bolded and italicized this because it's my main point. Your argument is that the Constitution should be easier to go back and change, and I've already stated why this is wrong and here it is again:

Why? Because it wouldn't be a Constitution if it were as elastic as you want it to be. Your criticisms of how it needs to be "updated" -- that is, its foundation altered, keeping with the topic of gun control here (and to curtail the inevitable sidetracking regarding human rights, suffrage, etc) -- is myopic, and the exact reason why the authors of it made it so difficult to alter. What you perceive as "keeping with the times" is what they rightly understood as "here we go again." There's nothing new under the sun in other words, and an altering of the current constitution to "keep with the times" will have a detrimental effect on itself as a whole and the ideals that this country were originally founded on.

I would think that the reason why people like myself are so stubborn in regards to the Constitution and tampering with it would be plainly evident here, of all places. The tampering that you're advocating in regards to the 2nd Amendment is made with good intentions, I know -- but still, they're the same famous kind of good intentions that act as pavement to an undesirable end.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Then it's obvious that you didn't read what I wrote.... in fact I made quite an effort to get this point across and even made a followup post to drive said point home, which you even quoted, but unsurprisingly it still managed to fly right past you.

Of course! It's because I'm either stupid, or didn't read what you wrote. It couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that when you're not contradicting yourself, you're simply incoherent.

Do you now see why I don't have a problem with the 17 amendments as they are? Not all of them are agreeable, but you can't expect everything to turn out perfectly ideal. And if for some reason America comes across another reason to create another amendment that further expands upon our freedoms and/or limits government, I probably won't have a single problem with that either.

What I do have a problem with is anyone going in and tampering with what we've already set in place for the Constitution. I've bolded and italicized this because it's my main point. Your argument is that the Constitution should be easier to go back and change, and I've already stated why this is wrong....

First off, I never said I wanted to change the process for amending the Constitution.
Second, it seems that when Mr. Radio likes a change to the Constitution, that's called an "amendment." When he doesn't like it, it's called "tampering."
Third, you talk about not altering "the foundations" of the document, but you never define what you mean by "foundation."
Fourth, stop beating around the bush, else fuck off.

[Mr Radio]

First off, I never said I wanted to change the process for amending the Constitution.

Strawman #4. I never said that you did. Here's what you said:

The Second Amendment needs updating.

My point, exactly.

-------

Second, it seems that when Mr. Radio likes a change to the Constitution, that's called an "amendment." When he doesn't like it, it's called "tampering."

Oh. So you really can't read.

And if for some reason America comes across another reason to create another amendment that further expands upon our freedoms and/or limits government, I probably won't have a single problem with that either.

What I do have a problem with is anyone going in and tampering with what we've already set in place for the Constitution.

Is the bolding/enlarging of that key phrase enough for you? Do you need it in crayon, or do you need the Muppets to sing it to you, or what? I can do the former, the but latter is a little more difficult to manage.

And do I have to explain, again, what the whole point of a Constitution is? I think I have to -- I know I have to, because it's obvious how obstinate you are. Here it comes in language you can (hopefully) understand: When you set a specific guarantee or law down in a constitution, it is with the intent that it cannot (or is incredibly difficult to) be removed, altered, or denied. This is exactly what you want and this is why we're having this argument. Now, if you wanted to go and propose an amendment to the Constitution that guarantees the freedom of marriage for homosexuals, for instance, I would cheer you on. If you wanted to propose an amendment to, say, disband the TSA and anything resembling it, I would be in your corner. You're not doing any of these things, though, but you're doing your damndest here to make it seem like you are.

What you are proposing is to go back and change the 2nd Amendment, thus curtailing or depriving American citizens of a specific liberty, because you don't like it for whatever reasons. Again, this is why we're having this disagreement. I would feel the same way about you wanting to change any of the amendments of the Constitution, even the Income Tax and the nebulous 11th Amendment. I am arguing that if this principle is violated, then our freedoms (all of them) have been compromised because every single one of them reside behind the same aegis.

And then why don't I have a problem with the 18th Amendment being canned? Didn't that reside behind said aegis as well? No, it was an attack against it -- as I pointed out, it's the only amendment to the Constitution created to deprive a liberty. By nullifying it, that liberty was restored, aegis was given a hasty bondo patch, painted over and good as new.

Now, have I clarified my position, or are you not done whipping that poor strawman yet?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Oh. So you really can't read.

Is the bolding/enlarging of that key phrase enough for you? Do you need it in crayon, or do you need the Muppets to sing it to you, or what?

And do I have to explain, again, what the whole point of a Constitution is? I think I have to -- I know I have to, because it's obvious how obstinate you are. Here it comes in language you can (hopefully) understand:

Now, have I clarified my position, or are you not done whipping that poor strawman yet?

You're quite the charmer! I bet you're the life of all the tea parties.

Now, hurling insults may have worked as a means of persuasion for you in the past, but I'm thinking all this was just a masturbatory exercise on your part. Was it good for you?

Honestly, I get why you're so afraid of a repeal of 2A, I do. Because without your knob gun to polish, and your fantasies of capping those who took your stapler, you'd be forced to face the reality that you're a miserable excuse for a human, possessing low intelligence and unpleasant manners, stuck with a dead-end job and a fat harridan for a wife ... and no way to change any of it. Just be glad I'm not advocating a constitutional ban on raised 4x4s.

Unlike most forums, a noob acting like a raging asshole right out of the gate won't get you banned at the Pit. What will happen is, most everyone will put you on ignore. Let me show you how that works:

[Mr Radio]

Honestly, I get why you're so afraid of a repeal of 2A, I do. Because without your knob gun to polish, and your fantasies of capping those who took your stapler, you'd be forced to face the reality that you're a miserable excuse for a human, possessing low intelligence and unpleasant manners, stuck with a dead-end job and a fat harridan for a wife ... and no way to change any of it.

I gave you too much credit. I didn't think you'd default to projecting a sour grapes sore-loser diatribe so quickly.

Just be glad I'm not advocating a constitutional ban on raised 4x4s.

I'm breathing a sigh of relief like you wouldn't believe. After tangling with your formidable intellect (before it took its ball and went home mad), I don't think our system could handle the onslaught.

Unlike most forums, a noob acting like a raging asshole right out of the gate won't get you banned at the Pit. What will happen is, most everyone will put you on ignore. Let me show you how that works:

Translation: I lost to this upstart in a debate on a forum that advocates debate, and I'm mad about it, and I'm going to really hurt his feelings by telling him that I'm putting him on ignore and imply that everyone else will too. That'll show em'.

[youtube]37OWL7AzvHo[/youtube]

[Wow]

It's amusing when someone starts an argument on an Internet forum, gleeful about how right he is, and then gets really upset when someone actually wants to argue with him