What then would you do to stop these violent acts?
Yes, there are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. It would be difficult to eliminate everything that's a danger. A car is a useful tool for many things. A handgun just has one use.
It may be as simple as the U.S. having a violent culture in some places. Be it cutting each other or beating each other or shooting each other.
I don't have the answer to that, but if you find it I'll kiss your feet.
[quote]Yes, there are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. It would be difficult to eliminate everything that's a danger. A car is a useful tool for many things. A handgun just has one use.<hr></blockquote>
A car is only designed for one use; locomotion.
In real life there are many uses, just like for guns.
[quote]Tighter gun control doesn't seem to be working.<hr></blockquote>
And neither will banning. It didn't work for alcohol in the 20s, doesn't work for drugs now and won't work for guns.
I said " handguns just have one use ". And it's true. People don't use those for hunting.
Cars do have many uses : Locomotion, locomotion for a mass of people, hauling large loads, enjoyment or stress relief ( the sunday drive ), sex appeal.
The last one was a joke but you get my drift.
Handguns have one use.
Banning may not eliminate the problem but, it may slow it down until we can work on the violent society part.
Yes I agree prohibition was a complete failure. but, we will have to do something. Right now it's just too easy ( and statistics will bear me out ) for someone irresponsible to get their hands on one.
I am quite sure that if the freedom of the press or the freedom of speech or public assembly were in question here, there would be a much different attitude by some posters here. The gun issue does not appeal to some as much as another, however, if we bend on one issue we will surely cave in on others in the future. Who would be upset right now if the freedom of speech were to be changed?
This is a valid example of showing how our rights as U.S. citizens are needed in their entirety, not compromised for some political agenda.
Ben Franklin once said " Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". Wise man indeed.
All right, it's too easy to argue about different things, so I'll stick with handguns for now.
[quote]I said " handguns just have one use ". And it's true. People don't use those for hunting.<hr></blockquote>
Not directly, maybe, and not usually.
My grandparents bought some land out in East Texas when I was about 13, so my uncle and I cleared a lot of land of trees so they could build some land. Both of us had Glock 9mms strapped to our sides while we chainsawed because there were wild hogs, coyotes and snakes everywhere and they don't like it when you're destroying their habitat. We did a lot of "self-defense" with those handguns over that summer.
[quote]Cars do have many uses : Locomotion, locomotion for a mass of people, hauling large loads, enjoyment or stress relief ( the sunday drive ), sex appeal.<hr></blockquote>
You list four reasons and he first three are locomotion, the one reason I stated.
Sex appeal is definitely a real world use of a car. Just like intimidation is a real world use of a handgun.
[quote]Banning may not eliminate the problem but, it may slow it down until we can work on the violent society part.<hr></blockquote>
I do not want to take away the rights of my fellow citizens on such a supposition. Until someone can prove that banning the production of handguns and taking them away from all the registered owners will lead to a drastic reduction in handgun-related crime I will not support a ban on handguns.
There are far too many law-abiding, good people out there with legitimate uses for their handguns for me to disregard them.
[quote]Yes I agree prohibition was a complete failure. but, we will have to do something. Right now it's just too easy ( and statistics will bear me out ) for someone irresponsible to get their hands on one.<hr></blockquote>
I would disagree that it's "too easy". Handguns are expensive to buy and maintain. That is, if you're going to do it legally.
It might be cheaper on the black market... but banning handguns will only increase the black market.
Remember the Federalists were arguing for a strong federal gov't. They were forced into accepting a Bill of Rights by the anti-federalists, who were opposed to the Constitution.
A history lesson for us?</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, we were talking about the history of the Constitution.
I guess it kinda got lost in my long-winded post, but I was going to say that people always bring in quotes from the Federalist papers when they talk about these things.
But when people take quotes from those writings out of context, which is what I was trying to show had happened, you won't see the larger picture. The larger picture is that writing state militias into the Bill of Rights was a concession by the Federalists to those opposed to the Constitution.
In the larger context of trying to get the thing passed, the Second Amendment was about the fact that the anti-federalists didn't like the idea of a national army, and so the federalists (Hamilton et al.) said OK, the militias can be organized at the state level, and called by the federal gov't if needed. And the key was that they be organized by the states.
[quote]But when people take quotes from those writings out of context, which is what I was trying to show had happened, you won't see the larger picture. The larger picture is that writing state militias into the Bill of Rights was a concession by the Federalists to those opposed to the Constitution.<hr></blockquote>
You are making far too much of a blanket statement there, acting as if the Federalists were for disallowing guns entirely and even further than that assuming the Federalists had the power and made a "concession".
[quote]In the larger context of trying to get the thing passed, the Second Amendment was about the fact that the anti-federalists didn't like the idea of a national army, and so the federalists (Hamilton et al.) said OK, the militias can be organized at the state level, and called by the federal gov't if needed. And the key was that they be organized by the states.<hr></blockquote>
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it state that state organization is a requirement. If that was the requirement it would be explicitly stated. Many of the amendments, including the 2nd, were left ambiguous for a reason.
These were not stupid men who merely forgot to put "people can have guns for state militias".
You assume too much, just like you accuse others of doing when they read the 2nd amendment.
Also, the anti-Federalists weren't necessarily against the idea of a federal army, they were against federal control of local armies. The Federalists first idea for a national army was to just call on localized armed forced whose arms would be stored in a central location.
The 2nd amendment preserves the right of people to keep arms in their homes for the purpose of a militia, "well-regulated" is an ambiguous term and purposefully left open for interpretation. I'm not too familiar with SC case law on this particular issue so I'll leave that particular interpretation to the experts.
Does well-regulated mean organizational meetings and drills? Does it mean proper registration and training so that one can be called if needed?
Remember, the minutemen weren't always proper soldiers, but they were most certainly important.
I understand where you're coming from, but when you speak of limiting my fundamental right to self-protection, I kinda think that YOUR FEELINGS aren't as relevant.
Sure, express your opinion. That's what we're here for.
The thing is, we will get to a point ( and in the near not distant future ) where we will have NO choice but to ban.
That's the catch with democracy. If the people can't be responseable enough to handle a freedom they lose it. It's a shame when any freedoms have to go away.
A gun is a tool but you don't see clawhammers out of control.
At least if street gangs are just using knives and clubs those things don't go through living room walls by mistake and kill an innocent bystander ( or their children ).
If you folks ever wonder why I'm so G.D. vociferous about my right to protect myself, there's an example of what gun owners are up against. So now it's "inevitable" that our right to self-protection will be taken away.
How would you feel if I said that eventually taking your right to free speech was "inevitable" because of yellow journalism?
Does the govt. GIVE YOU the right to free speech, or would it exist WITHOUT the govt.?
<strong>Which brings me to eliminating the lobbiest and corruption in US government be it the ethnic lobbies (Isreal, Cuba-American and Irish American) and corporate lobby (Auto Industry, etc). This is where I really support McCain Feingold...which has been partially implemented.</strong><hr></blockquote>
McCain-Feingold HASN'T been implemented -- this election is immune. But it SOUNDS GOOD. The parts of McCain-Feingold which limit free speech will be thrown out soon enough.
I could if I wanted to (except that it's against the law because some morons wouldn't be accurate enough to humanely kill the game). MOST handguns aren't used for hunting because of game laws -- I agree with you, jimmac, those game laws should be changed.
[quote]Does the govt. GIVE YOU the right to free speech, or would it exist WITHOUT the govt.?<hr></blockquote>
Sadly, I think your question would be answered "The government gives us that right." by most people today.
I really feel that we are heading towards a more totalitarian system than the one we have enjoyed for years. Certainly, we are an amazingly free people, but the political make-up of people evolves in cycles over time and I think our time of political-egalitarianistic principle and the (right, IMO) idea of government being a servant of the people is slowly but surely dying bit by bit.
People would do well to not forget that people give the government the power it has.
Agent X, of the anti-terror commando unit2456: " um we have this groverat character saying to his girlfriend on his phone that he wants to go to the store.... is that OK boss"
agent Y from the corporate office of WACKENHUT Anti-Terror INC> "um... I don't thing that we gauranteed that right.... what's it say in your manual AgentX? I thought that if the Civ in question was lacking proper Patrio per month ratios we were to restrict their consumption quantas"
AgentX "yes sir.... and its all on tape sir.... shall we go in then"
AgentY "yes... unless he has a handgun...(ghasp!!) maybe we better rethink this....."
The same people who claim that 1,000 murderers should be let free before 1 innocent man is punished will certainly take away the rights of 1,000 to protect an ignorant 1.
I hope we keep our heads on straight and start paying less attention to sensationalism.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the rights of gun-toters infringe upon the rights of the anti-gun establishment, then mister, you no longer have the right to tote guns. This is what the debate is about- Violence in America attributed to the right to carry guns. How many hand-gun murders or shootings occurred last year? The year before? Why value this right when it has killed so many innocent people. GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE HERE TO STAY.
[quote]If the rights of gun-toters infringe upon the rights of the anti-gun establishment, then mister, you no longer have the right to tote guns.<hr></blockquote>
How exactly does someone owning a gun infringe on anyone else's rights?
[quote]This is what the debate is about- Violence in America attributed to the right to carry guns. How many hand-gun murders or shootings occurred last year? The year before? Why value this right when it has killed so many innocent people. GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE HERE TO STAY.<hr></blockquote>
Well sure, gun control laws are generally fine. Regulation is good in most industries to some extent. We register vehicles, we should register gns.
<strong>To address the issues brought up by two foreigners:
powerdoc:
This is very very very scary to me.
When will people understand that lobby groups are representing the ideas of the people of the United States, like them or not?
A lobby group is never evil if it is representing your ideas, is it?
This is nothing more than crushing dissent and it's worrying.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Lobbiests corrupt the system. I guess the group with the most money and paid for influence gets heard. Of course, everyone has a right to get heard but the money is damaging to the political system in my opionion. and money buys influence in US politics. BTW, I am American, I just live in UK.
One can argue that this is the democratic way but many people see how $$$ are twisting the adgenda in order for politicians to fill their coffers for the next election campaign. Is our democracy for sale to the highest bidder?
Lobbiest don't neccessarily represent the ideas of the people as you say. In fact, I would counter that they only represent the issues for that special interest group.
This is not a republican or democratic issue but a systematic issue in US. That's why I support McCain Feingold and others in this effort to wipe out soft money.
There is a great article on the Isreali Lobby (which is a foreign lobby I might add) in the US written by a former Sec of State Foreign affairs person. It is located in Propect Magazine here in London which is very influential: it was in the april issue.
<strong>Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it state that state organization is a requirement. If that was the requirement it would be explicitly stated</strong><hr></blockquote>What if the First Amendment free speech clause read like this:
[quote]Political protest, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to speak, shall not be infringed.<hr></blockquote>I think everyone would understand that this would be about political speech specifically, rather than other types of speech (e.g., commercial, or the press).
Of course, the First Amendment doesn't say that. It's very general and doesn't give a context to free speech. The Second Amendment does give such a context. Why? Why doesn't the Second Amendment read simply: [quote]Congress shall pass no law abridging the free ownership of guns.<hr></blockquote>
It doesn't because it was about well-regulated State military organizations, not individuals having guns for any reason. [quote]The 2nd amendment preserves the right of people to keep arms in their homes for the purpose of a militia, "well-regulated" is an ambiguous term and purposefully left open for interpretation.<hr></blockquote>I agree with what you said here (so you may want to rethink it).
Groverat : my post was more a philosophical thought than a specific one about the interpretation of the second amendement about guns.
When i said that strict interpretation of an holy script like the Kuran can lead to stupids behaviors like the extremist muslims i don't mean that somebody who follow strictly the second amendement is as stupid as extremist muslims. This was not my willing. If you have understand this that way : sorry .
Concerning culture USA and France share many things, but our culture is different in the case of guns. So it's difficult for me to have an opinion about this subject because i do not live in the US and i was not born here : i mean i have not the historical background. As a french where it is almost impossible to bears arms (unless certain cases) , it's difficult to imagine an other system, as an american who have the habit or the reverse i think it's difficult to imagine the reverse.
Frankly if you ask me : do you want that people in France have the free right to bears arms : i'll say without any hesitation : no. If you ask me the same question for US : it will be more difficult to answer : not the same historical background.
[quote]It doesn't because it was about well-regulated State military organizations, not individuals having guns for any reason.<hr></blockquote>
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is state organization listed as a requirement.
Not necessarily state-sponsored Not necessarily an organization (or even all that organized).
It is not unreasonable at all to read into the 2nd amendment that a "well-regulated Militia" is simple a mass of citizens spread throughout the community who have registered their weapons and have taken shooting/gun safety classes. (And I think shooting/gun safety classes should be a requirement before purchasing a gun.)
FYI: I'm not one to use the 2nd amendment as a defense of personal-use gun ownership in a home-defense sense. While it certainly is a powerful protection for those of us who think guns don't put the evil into people, it most certainly isn't the only reference point.
The constitution's point isn't to provide rights, it's to limit the power of government. And while there certainly isn't anything in there saying "Citizens can have any gun they want and carry it around cowboy-style" I can't think of anything that gives the federal gov't the right to take a private citizen's weapons away.
powerdoc:
[quote]When i said that strict interpretation of an holy script like the Kuran can lead to stupids behaviors like the extremist muslims i don't mean that somebody who follow strictly the second amendement is as stupid as extremist muslims.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, those who want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens are using an extremely strict reading of the 2nd amendment.
Your argument is counter-productive to your goal.
Those willing to read a right to privacy into the 1st amendment are suddenly very meticulous when they get to the 2nd amendment... amazing, eh?
I, personally, believe in being current and open-minded with our Constitution and her amendments. I advocate a well-reasoned reading of ALL amendments, not just those that suit my own personal political preferences of the moment.
[quote]If you ask me the same question for US : it will be more difficult to answer : not the same historical background.<hr></blockquote>
Comments
What then would you do to stop these violent acts?
Yes, there are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. It would be difficult to eliminate everything that's a danger. A car is a useful tool for many things. A handgun just has one use.
Tighter gun control doesn't seem to be working.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I don't have the answer to that, but if you find it I'll kiss your feet.
[quote]Yes, there are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. It would be difficult to eliminate everything that's a danger. A car is a useful tool for many things. A handgun just has one use.<hr></blockquote>
A car is only designed for one use; locomotion.
In real life there are many uses, just like for guns.
[quote]Tighter gun control doesn't seem to be working.<hr></blockquote>
And neither will banning. It didn't work for alcohol in the 20s, doesn't work for drugs now and won't work for guns.
Cars do have many uses : Locomotion, locomotion for a mass of people, hauling large loads, enjoyment or stress relief ( the sunday drive ), sex appeal.
The last one was a joke but you get my drift.
Handguns have one use.
Banning may not eliminate the problem but, it may slow it down until we can work on the violent society part.
Yes I agree prohibition was a complete failure. but, we will have to do something. Right now it's just too easy ( and statistics will bear me out ) for someone irresponsible to get their hands on one.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
This is a valid example of showing how our rights as U.S. citizens are needed in their entirety, not compromised for some political agenda.
Ben Franklin once said " Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". Wise man indeed.
[quote]I said " handguns just have one use ". And it's true. People don't use those for hunting.<hr></blockquote>
Not directly, maybe, and not usually.
My grandparents bought some land out in East Texas when I was about 13, so my uncle and I cleared a lot of land of trees so they could build some land. Both of us had Glock 9mms strapped to our sides while we chainsawed because there were wild hogs, coyotes and snakes everywhere and they don't like it when you're destroying their habitat. We did a lot of "self-defense" with those handguns over that summer.
[quote]Cars do have many uses : Locomotion, locomotion for a mass of people, hauling large loads, enjoyment or stress relief ( the sunday drive ), sex appeal.<hr></blockquote>
You list four reasons and he first three are locomotion, the one reason I stated.
Sex appeal is definitely a real world use of a car. Just like intimidation is a real world use of a handgun.
[quote]Banning may not eliminate the problem but, it may slow it down until we can work on the violent society part.<hr></blockquote>
I do not want to take away the rights of my fellow citizens on such a supposition. Until someone can prove that banning the production of handguns and taking them away from all the registered owners will lead to a drastic reduction in handgun-related crime I will not support a ban on handguns.
There are far too many law-abiding, good people out there with legitimate uses for their handguns for me to disregard them.
[quote]Yes I agree prohibition was a complete failure. but, we will have to do something. Right now it's just too easy ( and statistics will bear me out ) for someone irresponsible to get their hands on one.<hr></blockquote>
I would disagree that it's "too easy". Handguns are expensive to buy and maintain. That is, if you're going to do it legally.
It might be cheaper on the black market... but banning handguns will only increase the black market.
<strong>
BRussell:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Remember the Federalists were arguing for a strong federal gov't. They were forced into accepting a Bill of Rights by the anti-federalists, who were opposed to the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What does that matter?
A history lesson for us?</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, we were talking about the history of the Constitution.
I guess it kinda got lost in my long-winded post, but I was going to say that people always bring in quotes from the Federalist papers when they talk about these things.
But when people take quotes from those writings out of context, which is what I was trying to show had happened, you won't see the larger picture. The larger picture is that writing state militias into the Bill of Rights was a concession by the Federalists to those opposed to the Constitution.
In the larger context of trying to get the thing passed, the Second Amendment was about the fact that the anti-federalists didn't like the idea of a national army, and so the federalists (Hamilton et al.) said OK, the militias can be organized at the state level, and called by the federal gov't if needed. And the key was that they be organized by the states.
You are making far too much of a blanket statement there, acting as if the Federalists were for disallowing guns entirely and even further than that assuming the Federalists had the power and made a "concession".
[quote]In the larger context of trying to get the thing passed, the Second Amendment was about the fact that the anti-federalists didn't like the idea of a national army, and so the federalists (Hamilton et al.) said OK, the militias can be organized at the state level, and called by the federal gov't if needed. And the key was that they be organized by the states.<hr></blockquote>
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it state that state organization is a requirement. If that was the requirement it would be explicitly stated. Many of the amendments, including the 2nd, were left ambiguous for a reason.
These were not stupid men who merely forgot to put "people can have guns for state militias".
You assume too much, just like you accuse others of doing when they read the 2nd amendment.
Also, the anti-Federalists weren't necessarily against the idea of a federal army, they were against federal control of local armies. The Federalists first idea for a national army was to just call on localized armed forced whose arms would be stored in a central location.
The 2nd amendment preserves the right of people to keep arms in their homes for the purpose of a militia, "well-regulated" is an ambiguous term and purposefully left open for interpretation. I'm not too familiar with SC case law on this particular issue so I'll leave that particular interpretation to the experts.
Does well-regulated mean organizational meetings and drills? Does it mean proper registration and training so that one can be called if needed?
Remember, the minutemen weren't always proper soldiers, but they were most certainly important.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>
Why? I was stating a belief. That's all. It would be difficult to prove my statements and I admit that.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand where you're coming from, but when you speak of limiting my fundamental right to self-protection, I kinda think that YOUR FEELINGS aren't as relevant.
Sure, express your opinion. That's what we're here for.
<strong>
The thing is, we will get to a point ( and in the near not distant future ) where we will have NO choice but to ban.
That's the catch with democracy. If the people can't be responseable enough to handle a freedom they lose it. It's a shame when any freedoms have to go away.
A gun is a tool but you don't see clawhammers out of control.
At least if street gangs are just using knives and clubs those things don't go through living room walls by mistake and kill an innocent bystander ( or their children ).
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you folks ever wonder why I'm so G.D. vociferous about my right to protect myself, there's an example of what gun owners are up against. So now it's "inevitable" that our right to self-protection will be taken away.
How would you feel if I said that eventually taking your right to free speech was "inevitable" because of yellow journalism?
Does the govt. GIVE YOU the right to free speech, or would it exist WITHOUT the govt.?
<strong>Which brings me to eliminating the lobbiest and corruption in US government be it the ethnic lobbies (Isreal, Cuba-American and Irish American) and corporate lobby (Auto Industry, etc). This is where I really support McCain Feingold...which has been partially implemented.</strong><hr></blockquote>
McCain-Feingold HASN'T been implemented -- this election is immune. But it SOUNDS GOOD. The parts of McCain-Feingold which limit free speech will be thrown out soon enough.
<strong>People don't use those for hunting.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I could if I wanted to (except that it's against the law because some morons wouldn't be accurate enough to humanely kill the game). MOST handguns aren't used for hunting because of game laws -- I agree with you, jimmac, those game laws should be changed.
Sadly, I think your question would be answered "The government gives us that right." by most people today.
I really feel that we are heading towards a more totalitarian system than the one we have enjoyed for years. Certainly, we are an amazingly free people, but the political make-up of people evolves in cycles over time and I think our time of political-egalitarianistic principle and the (right, IMO) idea of government being a servant of the people is slowly but surely dying bit by bit.
People would do well to not forget that people give the government the power it has.
agent Y from the corporate office of WACKENHUT Anti-Terror INC> "um... I don't thing that we gauranteed that right.... what's it say in your manual AgentX? I thought that if the Civ in question was lacking proper Patrio per month ratios we were to restrict their consumption quantas"
AgentX "yes sir.... and its all on tape sir.... shall we go in then"
AgentY "yes... unless he has a handgun...(ghasp!!) maybe we better rethink this....."
<strong>
The same people who claim that 1,000 murderers should be let free before 1 innocent man is punished will certainly take away the rights of 1,000 to protect an ignorant 1.
I hope we keep our heads on straight and start paying less attention to sensationalism.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the rights of gun-toters infringe upon the rights of the anti-gun establishment, then mister, you no longer have the right to tote guns. This is what the debate is about- Violence in America attributed to the right to carry guns. How many hand-gun murders or shootings occurred last year? The year before? Why value this right when it has killed so many innocent people. GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE HERE TO STAY.
--
[quote]If the rights of gun-toters infringe upon the rights of the anti-gun establishment, then mister, you no longer have the right to tote guns.<hr></blockquote>
How exactly does someone owning a gun infringe on anyone else's rights?
[quote]This is what the debate is about- Violence in America attributed to the right to carry guns. How many hand-gun murders or shootings occurred last year? The year before? Why value this right when it has killed so many innocent people. GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE HERE TO STAY.<hr></blockquote>
Well sure, gun control laws are generally fine. Regulation is good in most industries to some extent. We register vehicles, we should register gns.
<strong>To address the issues brought up by two foreigners:
powerdoc:
This is very very very scary to me.
When will people understand that lobby groups are representing the ideas of the people of the United States, like them or not?
A lobby group is never evil if it is representing your ideas, is it?
This is nothing more than crushing dissent and it's worrying.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Lobbiests corrupt the system. I guess the group with the most money and paid for influence gets heard. Of course, everyone has a right to get heard but the money is damaging to the political system in my opionion. and money buys influence in US politics. BTW, I am American, I just live in UK.
One can argue that this is the democratic way but many people see how $$$ are twisting the adgenda in order for politicians to fill their coffers for the next election campaign. Is our democracy for sale to the highest bidder?
Lobbiest don't neccessarily represent the ideas of the people as you say. In fact, I would counter that they only represent the issues for that special interest group.
This is not a republican or democratic issue but a systematic issue in US. That's why I support McCain Feingold and others in this effort to wipe out soft money.
There is a great article on the Isreali Lobby (which is a foreign lobby I might add) in the US written by a former Sec of State Foreign affairs person. It is located in Propect Magazine here in London which is very influential: it was in the april issue.
:-)
[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
<strong>Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it state that state organization is a requirement. If that was the requirement it would be explicitly stated</strong><hr></blockquote>What if the First Amendment free speech clause read like this:
[quote]Political protest, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to speak, shall not be infringed.<hr></blockquote>I think everyone would understand that this would be about political speech specifically, rather than other types of speech (e.g., commercial, or the press).
Of course, the First Amendment doesn't say that. It's very general and doesn't give a context to free speech. The Second Amendment does give such a context. Why? Why doesn't the Second Amendment read simply: [quote]Congress shall pass no law abridging the free ownership of guns.<hr></blockquote>
It doesn't because it was about well-regulated State military organizations, not individuals having guns for any reason. [quote]The 2nd amendment preserves the right of people to keep arms in their homes for the purpose of a militia, "well-regulated" is an ambiguous term and purposefully left open for interpretation.<hr></blockquote>I agree with what you said here (so you may want to rethink it).
When i said that strict interpretation of an holy script like the Kuran can lead to stupids behaviors like the extremist muslims i don't mean that somebody who follow strictly the second amendement is as stupid as extremist muslims. This was not my willing. If you have understand this that way : sorry
Concerning culture USA and France share many things, but our culture is different in the case of guns. So it's difficult for me to have an opinion about this subject because i do not live in the US and i was not born here : i mean i have not the historical background. As a french where it is almost impossible to bears arms (unless certain cases) , it's difficult to imagine an other system, as an american who have the habit or the reverse i think it's difficult to imagine the reverse.
Frankly if you ask me : do you want that people in France have the free right to bears arms : i'll say without any hesitation : no. If you ask me the same question for US : it will be more difficult to answer : not the same historical background.
[quote]It doesn't because it was about well-regulated State military organizations, not individuals having guns for any reason.<hr></blockquote>
Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is state organization listed as a requirement.
Not necessarily state-sponsored Not necessarily an organization (or even all that organized).
It is not unreasonable at all to read into the 2nd amendment that a "well-regulated Militia" is simple a mass of citizens spread throughout the community who have registered their weapons and have taken shooting/gun safety classes. (And I think shooting/gun safety classes should be a requirement before purchasing a gun.)
FYI: I'm not one to use the 2nd amendment as a defense of personal-use gun ownership in a home-defense sense. While it certainly is a powerful protection for those of us who think guns don't put the evil into people, it most certainly isn't the only reference point.
The constitution's point isn't to provide rights, it's to limit the power of government. And while there certainly isn't anything in there saying "Citizens can have any gun they want and carry it around cowboy-style" I can't think of anything that gives the federal gov't the right to take a private citizen's weapons away.
powerdoc:
[quote]When i said that strict interpretation of an holy script like the Kuran can lead to stupids behaviors like the extremist muslims i don't mean that somebody who follow strictly the second amendement is as stupid as extremist muslims.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, those who want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens are using an extremely strict reading of the 2nd amendment.
Your argument is counter-productive to your goal.
Those willing to read a right to privacy into the 1st amendment are suddenly very meticulous when they get to the 2nd amendment... amazing, eh?
I, personally, believe in being current and open-minded with our Constitution and her amendments. I advocate a well-reasoned reading of ALL amendments, not just those that suit my own personal political preferences of the moment.
[quote]If you ask me the same question for US : it will be more difficult to answer : not the same historical background.<hr></blockquote>
Thanks for recognizing that.