Second Amendment Reinstated in Washington

[DGMacphee]

Most U.S laws started fairly ambiguous, and they've been whittled down by the judicial system.    Picking apart the language and making calls based on the language itself and precedents set in the past.

In general - you write a rule and have NO IDEA what exceptions will arise.   So you have to keep whittling it down.    But as for this issue, the government usually keeps its hands off since the language has been scrutinized by eagles' eyes all these years.   Simply touching one word would be seen as treason by these "militias."

I don't think the laws are that ambiguous, because they were created with a certain intent and context. I think it's more so how people can abuse laws to meet their wants. In other words, loopholes.

Likewise, you say the government takes a hands-off approach, but when a law goes against the wants of the government, they'll also use and abuse loopholes. Consider how different the government's approach is to habeas corpus. One of the main loophole they used to suspend the habeas corpus laws was to say that there was no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution, but just a prohibition against taking it away (These were essentially then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' exact words). My response is "You shittin' me??" How can you prohibit something being taken away without it being granted first (Arlen Specter's words). The Attorney General pretty much defined the language in the constitution to suspend proper legal rights, which is an abuse as far as I can see.

Read this for an interesting look at Gonzales' words: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

Consider the US fought the British to uphold principals such as this because they believed that even prisoners in federal custody deserved rights. That was the intent. There is no real ambiguity in what it provides. But the current administration abuses the intent by finding dumb loopholes to suit their wants.

[evenwolf]

But these loopholes only work when public opinion follows suit.   Many Americans gave up their rights during all the Homeland Security shenanigans because they were convinced doing so was detrimental to their family's safety.   The government slipped one by us.

Yes most laws are ambiguous: The intent of the right to free speech is evident but is consistently being debated in this country over the definitions of "slander" and "libel".      The words slander and libel are probably some of the best words to use in the law because you could never replace the words with a passage such as "No person shall make a false claim with the intent of harming someone else".   We'd end up with court cases where wives are suing husbands over insults they made about their wardrobe.    I mean there is NO possible way to replace the word slander with its meaning, and cover all your bases.   The definition of slander will always need to be battled in the courtroom so that the law remains flexible enough to cover other instances.    (  Language itself is ambiguous, this is something my linguistics professor taught me  .)

Free speech and gun rights ambiguity are virtually identical but I see no need to redraft the law in an effort for clarity.   There will just be another word whose meaning will be equally scrutinized.  We live in a society run by words but many of those words have multiple meanings and loopholes within themselves.  If it helps a person's case he conjugates the word to the point of insanity, or holds power point presentations over the Latin root word in an effort to dodge the law.

Hell, this county had a president who argued what the definition of the word "is" is.   

[Disco]

Well redrafting these laws based on current attitudes would only be reinstated as is by way of circular reasoning i.e. "I believe we should have the right to keep arms in the constitution because it's guaranteed by the constitution" etc.

[Darth Mandarb]

I have always interpreted the 2nd Amendment like this:

"The citizenry of the nation have the right to bear arms so that, should the government ever become [again] the tyrannical type (like King George), they could rise up in opposition and have the weapons (arms) needed for such an uprising (to level the playing field)."

Now ... is this practical in today's world?  Not really.  We may have the most heavily armed civilian populace in the world (do we?) but the firepower our military possesses FAR out-strips anything a militia, that might rise against it, could muster. (that's assuming the military leaders wouldn't turn on the government, but we'll leave that possibility out for now).

I think the people of the U.S. take advantage of (dare I say abuse) the 2nd amendment just as they abuse the 1st amendment.

Just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you should.

Just because you CAN own a firearm, doesn't mean you should.

But we have pop-culture (rap music spot-lighting "thug life"), Hollywood (movies glorifying violence), and fear (all the criminals are so well armed!) pumping the "need" to own a gun into the average American's head and, I'm sad to admit, most Americans aren't the free-thinking type.  Most are highly trained sheep that go with the flow and follow "orders".

Do I think my country would be an inherently safer place with less civilians with guns?  I concede that it's likely to be so, yes.

But fear is a powerful motivator and as long as the "bad" guys have the guns, the "good" guys are gonna want them too.  I am not sure how to solve the problem.

[evenwolf]

I don't mind other nations shaking their finger at us for our gun culture...  it's wholly understandable.   But most will never understand how ingrained gun rights are in the fabric of America.

It doesn't help that the most popular thesis on gun control, "Bowling For Columbine", is riddled with blatant propaganda.  I'm referring mostly to the Charlton Heston speech that was edited together from 2 separate speeches.   If you have a copy watch it, and keep an eye on the color of Heston's shirt.   Details are available in a documentary called "Manufacturing Dissent".

I was with these filmmakers a day or two after this interview.  They's good people and what they say during this interview is ABSOLUTELY true.  I love this interview... the fact that it actually happened on Fox News when fox was expecting these guys just to bash Moore.   It was a tiny glimmer of hope on an otherwise doomed network.

[DGMacphee]

But these loopholes only work when public opinion follows suit.   Many Americans gave up their rights during all the Homeland Security shenanigans because they were convinced doing so was detrimental to their family's safety.   The government slipped one by us.

I disagree. The suspension of habeas corpus didn't have much to do with public opinion. It had to do with the House and Senate approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (and during a time when public opinion of the administration was as low as it is now) and now the executive and judicial branches are now fighting it out as to whether the Act is constitutional or not. It's not a case of the government slipping one by us and the public going along with it, it's a case of government intervention into something constitutionally granted and regardless of whether you're an American citizen or not.

I brought it up as a contrast point to government non-intervention of gun rights.

Yes most laws are ambiguous: The intent of the right to free speech is evident but is consistently being debated in this country over the definitions of "slander" and "libel".

I'm still not convinced because context and intent aren't ambiguous. I think it's pretty easy to see why certain laws were established, why certain judges make their decisions. And to say judges make their decisions on language alone is like saying everyone buys cars based purely on colour and nothing else.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I disagree. The suspension of habeas corpus didn't have much to do with public opinion. It had to do with the House and Senate approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (and during a time when public opinion of the administration was as low as it is now) and now the executive and judicial branches are now fighting it out as to whether the Act is constitutional or not. It's not a case of the government slipping one by us and the public going along with it, it's a case of government intervention into something constitutionally granted and regardless of whether you're an American citizen or not.

What you're saying here is largely true, DG, but evenwolf is also right in that many of Americans were so damn piss-scared by 9/11 that they'd almost consent to a dictatorship (which is virtually what we have now) to keep them 'safe' from anthrax scares and people flying large objects into buildings.  The special-interest owned media helped fuel these fears and spin them way out of proportion -- far beyond what CIA specialists were saying -- to the point that rational thought was in the minority.  This still doesn't excuse Bush from sanctioning secret prisons violating the Geneva Convention, allowing secret (some say not even judicially approved) wiretap and investigations of 'suspected' terrorists, his flagrant misuse of the Executive Order (up to and including his open dissent at the bottom of recent legislature like 'I respect the ruling of Congress but will not abide by it' which has now set a precedent for future Presidents to effectively ignore legislation), pardoning himself and his cabinet for any and all potential breaches of the Geneva Convention (why pardon yourself if you're not guilty?).  He's essentially made himself a dictator, ignoring public opinion (he regularly says that he doesn't care about public opinion) and the will of the American people.  I'd like to say this all began with the Homeland Security and Patriot Acts but the truth of the matter is it's been in progress at least since Bush Sr.'s time in office.  Clinton certainly did nothing to stop it since he and his wife are both card carrying CFR members, so at what point do you say 'no' to corruption and take back a country you once had faith in?

I think that time is coming, and if you look at several polls taken during this election you'll see that a great many Americans are thoroughly sick of out-of-control government and empire building and want it to stop. 

[DGMacphee]

I disagree. The suspension of habeas corpus didn't have much to do with public opinion. It had to do with the House and Senate approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (and during a time when public opinion of the administration was as low as it is now) and now the executive and judicial branches are now fighting it out as to whether the Act is constitutional or not. It's not a case of the government slipping one by us and the public going along with it, it's a case of government intervention into something constitutionally granted and regardless of whether you're an American citizen or not.

What you're saying here is largely true, DG, but evenwolf is also right in that many of Americans were so damn piss-scared by 9/11 that they'd almost consent to a dictatorship (which is virtually what we have now) to keep them 'safe' from anthrax scares and people flying large objects into buildings.  The special-interest owned media helped fuel these fears and spin them way out of proportion -- far beyond what CIA specialists were saying -- to the point that rational thought was in the minority. 

Yes, but what you're saying implies that public opinion is what drove the suspension of habeas corpus, which isn't the case. The suspension happened in late 2006 (5 years after Sept 11, 2001) when support for the Republicans was at a low point (and a month before the 2006 congressional elections where the Democrats achieved a majority in the House of Reps and the Senate). Likewise, opinion polling for the Bush administration was pretty low at this time. If public opinion drove the suspension of habeas corpus, then logically wouldn't people see it at a right move by the Bush administration and raise the support for the Republican party? I checked Bush's polling numbers and he didn't receive and significant bump after signing the 2006 Military Commissions Act (which included the habeas corpus suspension). I mean, if that particular piece of legislation is proof of Bush and Co's commitment to the War on Terror, and if people were as scared in 2006 as you suggest, wouldn't the public support for Bush improve? Likewise, the Republicans lost seats in the 2006 election, and if you think a frightened public supported the Military Commissions Act, they'd support the Republicans.

I don't think you can say the government suspended habeas corpus because the public wanted it. In fact, I don't think the average American at the time knew what habeas corpus was, which is all the more frightening. I mean, which is scarier: the government suspending a right because people are afraid, or the government suspending a right that people won't notice is gone because they don't know what it is?

Just to elaborate a little further, what I'm talking about goes beyond fear of terrorism. What the suspension of habeas corpus means is if the Bush administration says "You are an enemy of the state", you can get locked away without the right to challenge why you're in Guantanamo Bay. It's like a king having a dungeon to lock dissenters. American democracy was created as a means of escaping oppressive monarchy. Habeas corpus a right that seems so much more fundamental to democracy than the right to bear arms. Here's a good video to demonstrate why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQcnJ5i0pxA

But just to go back to my original point, the main reason why gun owners are against a ban on guns is because they're a part of the foundation of the US, i.e. 2nd amendment right to bear arms. But if they're that concerned about protecting the foundation of the country, you'd think they'd do more to protect something like habeas corpus too. (And if they created a militia to storm the White House and uphold habeas corpus, the government can say, "You guys are enemies of the state!" and lock them up.)

That's part of the reason why I don't buy the arguments that people wanted a suspension of habeas corpus specifically. I think they just didn't know what is was, why it was important, or care less about it in any case. If they knew that it was as important as how much they felt about guns, I think the backlash would be bigger, similar to the NSA wiretap backlash. (And regardless, I think the government would have suspended habeas corpus anyway).

Just to blow your minds further consider this: if people from the US do consent to a dictatorship and the US government wants to protect them then, logically, if the US government suspends habaes corpus, shouldn't they also ban guns for fear terrorists will sneak into the country and form a secret army? And shouldn't the American public accept this too?

[evenwolf]

Yes, but what you're saying implies that public opinion is what drove the suspension of habeas corpus, which isn't the case. ..........

In fact, I don't think the average American at the time knew what habeas corpus was, which is all the more frightening. I mean, which is scarier: the government suspending a right because people are afraid, or the government suspending a right that people won't notice is gone because they don't know what it is?................

But if they're that concerned about protecting the foundation of the country, you'd think they'd do more to protect something like habeas corpus too. (And if they created a militia to storm the White House and uphold habeas corpus, the government can say, "You guys are enemies of the state!" and lock them up.)...................

That's part of the reason why I don't buy the arguments that people wanted a suspension of habeas corpus specifically. I think they just didn't know what is was, why it was important, or care less about it in any case. If they knew that it was as important as how much they felt about guns, I think the backlash would be bigger, similar to the NSA wiretap backlash. (And regardless, I think the government would have suspended habeas corpus anyway).............

You're right on the  money, DG.    I don't see where we are arguing at all.   Earlier you quoted me to say "the goverment takes a hands-off approach"  but in reality I said this merely about gun rights.     Maybe you think that I'm saying public opinion DRIVES the issues, but mainly I'm just saying public opinion has to be tampered with if the public actively opposes the issue.

There are LOADS of laws the government can (and has) passed that are unconstitutional but the public is ignorant to the fact.    IMO, this still counts as "public opinion"...  just in the form of apathy.

Apathy kind of does drive the issue when the result is restricting our freedoms.   Isn't that what so many books are about?  I actually find that the government STRIVES for apathy among its citizens, going so far as to turn us off from politics altogether.   The less we pay attention, the more power they can grant themselves.

However, there is no apathy toward gun rights, so public opinion would actively have to be changed.  I stand by my opinion that gun rights are an exception, caused by so many citizens serving as watchdogs to that one issue alone.


Is it ironic that they are losing their other constitutional liberties one by one?  Yes sir.

[Ryan Timothy B]

I'm entering this argument quite late.  I feel anyone who is trying to back up the second amendment with half-assed excuses; by saying a gun is good for 'protection' or to 'make at ease' etc  has pretty flawed logic.


Here's a different view of your flawed logic (this is in the same context):
I think everyone on airplanes should have the right to bare box cutters.  You never know when a terrorist is going to be on that plane.

This way the people can out number the terrorists.


I hope that helped you realize how incredibly odd some of your arguments sound.



Also on a personal note.  I've never wanted to own a hand gun for any reason other than 'this gun would look awesome on my wall'.  I never felt I needed one.  I've never felt any threat to the point where I feel I need one.
Canada does have a few deaths by guns a year, but not often.

I've been to the USA many times before, and any store I went into, which was Walmart and many many pawn shops, all had guns on display.  They were either behind glass counters or hanging on a wall.
I've never felt such an unexplainable urge to want to purchase a firearm just because it looked so damn cool and tempting.  It's probably just the power that movies and shows give to guns.  And the fact that it's right there, in my face, saying "BUY ME!".

Anyway, I believe USA should start slowly at eliminating guns from the population.  The first attempt should be to have it illegal to display guns in any store.  All weapons should be securely in storage away from any customers, young and old. If you want to purchase a firearm you must browse through a catalog displaying what the store has in stock.  All weapons should be in a concealed brown box with no advertising displayed.  Any person opening the box prior to purchase should be fined.

This way, there won't be any impulse purchases or any brainwashing that guns are Ok and Safe; "shit, they are being displayed in Walmart, they MUST be safe."  Buying guns are like buying patio furniture in the USA.

This way there won't be any revolts or angered people.  Guns would still be part of your crazy amendment, just not as visually accessible.

[evenwolf]

Here's a different view of your flawed logic (this is in the same context):
I think everyone on airplanes should have the right to bare box cutters.  You never know when a terrorist is going to be on that plane.

This way the people can out number the terrorists.


I hope that helped you realize how incredibly odd some of your arguments sound.

*Raises hand

"Uh yes, was that supposed to be mind-blowing sir?"

I don't get it.   A metaphor is a metaphor but it isn't an argument.  You still have to appeal to a person's logic.  Many americans DO prefer to carry knives on planes.   I've gotten so far as the airport security check, and remembered I was carrying a knife.   So I handed it off to my friend to mail to me.     Pocket knives used to be allowed until someone broke the precedent of overtaking a plane with one.    The blades themselves are not the issue but the *will* to overtake the plane.    What will we do when terrorists overtake a plane with a sharpened house key?   Ban keys from planes?

Everyone brings keys onto a plane so how do you regulate "no keys".   Keys are designed to open doors, just as boxcutters are designed to cut boxes.   Again, the wielder must have the *will* to turn the object into a threat.   This is more complicated then you make it out to be. 

I think everyone on airplanes should have the right to bare keys.  You never know when a terrorist is going to be on that plane.

This way the people can out number the terrorists... and open their cars when they get to the parking lot.


This post doesn't apply to gun rights.  Just to the poor example you provided.    Anything can be used as a weapon.   Banning that one object won't remove the will to do harm.   Keys, shoes, gatorade, popsicle sticks, magazines... can all be used as weapons.   I happen to think that seeing a weapon, in a store for instance, does not generate the will in a person to do harm.     If you felt violent upon seeing a gun - that reflects poorly on your own mental state.   The will to do harm does not generate itself within the weapon you are holding.  You bring the killing potential to that weapon.  Keys, shoes, gatorade, popsicle sticks, magazines. 

Hence, maximum security prisoners are restricted from gaining access to certain hard materials.

[Ryan Timothy B]

It wasn't supposed to be mind-blowing at all.  I'm just trying to battle stupid pro's with stupid pro's.

[evenwolf]

OK, but what if your audience doesn't agree that its stupid?   I know some gun owners who would want to carry box cutters onto a plane. 

Anyone who doesn't believe in personal safety has OBVIOUSLY never dealt with American police.  I once called in a burglary and was told to hang up because I wasn't old enough.   The 911 operators themselves are unreliable.   I was just waiting around in a big house that had been broken into.   No police on the way.... and when I found an adult to make the call it took the police forever to arrive.  ( we told our friend who was also a 911 operator and she couldn't believe it.  What they said to me was against policy.)

The same argument that goes for "glorifying guns in movies"   also goes for "glorifying the police in movies"


You put YOUR life in their hands.  I'll be all right by myself.  Some of you are nuts to have any faith in them. When you need help - you need it now.   Know what I mean?

[Ryan Timothy B]

OK, but what if your audience doesn't agree that its stupid?

I know some gun owners who would want to carry box cutters onto a plane. 

They must be American.  lol I'm only joking. 

Like I said, people have flawed logic (including me).


There are hundreds of ways to kill people.  A gun just happens to be the most efficient way of doing so.  Just point and click, you don't even have to get close to anyone.  Why it's legal to own the item which is the most efficient way to kill someone, just boggles my mind.


Actually glorifying the police in movies can have a very positive outcome.  If the police look like super heroes, are you really going to push your luck into doing any illegal activities?  (But it's also bad for the population who believe they can rely on the police -- like in your situation)
Also look at CSI, if they get viewers to believe they can catch you by the whiff of your fart (joke), you'll think twice about doing that illegal act. (But it's also bad for helping the criminals prepare for their heist or what-not... "Remember gloves...")

[evenwolf]

Movies glorifying the police aren't bad.    I'm certain someone has been deterred from committing a crime based on what they saw in movies. 

But that sure doesn't help you if a crime IS committed.   The sad reality of the police shows up at your door, and the one movie cliche that holds true is the fact they're eating a donut.   

[DGMacphee]

Even, didn't mean to seem like we were arguing about it, nor to say you made a blanket statement about "hands off/hands on" for all rights. I brought up the issue of comparing governmental approach to two similar rights as a juxtaposition.

You make some good points, Even. But one in particular caught my attention:

However, there is no apathy toward gun rights, so public opinion would actively have to be changed.  I stand by my opinion that gun rights are an exception, caused by so many citizens serving as watchdogs to that one issue alone.

I think this is one of the reasons why I think protection of 2nd amendment rights as something cultural is less to do with defending freedoms and rights (because, as I've demonstrated, no one really gives as much notice about other rights).

So I can only determine that gun ownership is more a symbol of power than a representation of protecting rights.

And this leads to something ProgZmax said earlier that I didn't respond to (my apologies)...

It's an antiquated law and doesn't suit the 21st Century.

100% disagree.  There's nothing antiquated with a right to self-defensive measures that include gun ownership.  I also don't agree that the language needs re-working.  Most people in the US generally agree with what evenwolf has said, that the term 'militia' was used as a broad, non-federal military term to represent the people of the Republic, who should have the right to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.  Yes, this includes an out of control government no longer run by and for the people .
 

First of all, many countries don't have a Bill of Rights but still have provisions and laws for defense. You don't need a Right to Bear Arms in order to legally defend yourself (and nor do you need guns for self-defense either). So it's a false assumption that you need a right.

Secondly, these same countries without Bill of Rights also have provisions and laws for the Military and Federal Defense. My own country is an example.

Thirdly, the amendment came about as a hybrid of Bills of Right from other countries, most notably England. And the reason why was to assemble a ready reservist army. Plus the US faced a post-war period of lawlessness while they established their government. People needed guns back then because government, laws and democracy were new. But in this day and age you have so many safeguards: the US is the strongest military in the world, has powerful missle defense systems defending the state, have people monitoring international millitary action 25 hours a day. Then domestically, you have the laws, regulations, police, FBI, NSA, etc, etc  With all this fire power, do you think Americans actually really need a right to bear arms in order to feel they're safe and liberated?

Like I said, it's not a necessity anymore. A hundreds of years ago in the US, it was. Owning a gun isn't about liberty and rights anymore. It's about power and hegemony.

[evenwolf]

I didn't feel safe in the situation I described two posts up.     Many Americans have had similar situations where the police were an hour away.    Or their arrival was uncertain.

For most gun owners, having that cold steel in their own hands is all the safety they need.   And I don't blame them.   From the one experience I was shaking in fear...  looking through the hole the robbers had created when they kicked the door in.   You don't just feel safe knowing there is a police precinct in your city.   The officer actually has to be standing right next to you.

[DGMacphee]

Were the robbers armed with guns?

[evenwolf]

I'll never know.   They had left but my heart was pounding thinking they were upstairs.

[DGMacphee]

But if they weren't armed, a gun wasn't a necessity to feel safe when you could use, say, martial arts.

Why not change the Bill of Rights to say, "All Americans have the right to jujitsu or kung fu." (A joke of course, but you see my point, right?)

And if they were armed with guns, they may not have had the right to burgle, but they sure did have the right to bear arms while they burgled.