If we were drafting a new Constitution today, should it include the 2nd Amendment or not?

[XT]

@Little_Nemo

Let’s not quibble on semantics. Can we agree that making something a Constitutional right has an effect? That things like gun ownership, by virtue of being Constitutional rights, have a status different than what other things, like television ownership, have?

Well, it’s a continuum, but certainly rights protected under the Constitution are harder to circumvent, ban or curtail…such as the lawn dart example used in either this thread or a similar one.

[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
I really hope this is sarcasm.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, it was horror, perhaps coupled with a sense of disbelief that anyone could think such a thing is a good idea…or that anyone could seriously not understand that it would cut at the very heart of our Constitution if states could just wave Constitutional rights away.

You realize “the states” are not inherently evil because Abe Lincoln told you so.

I realize that either the drugs have gotten to you or you are hallucinating and drifting into non sequitur.

The citizens of each state should vote to say what powers they want their state government to have.

Um, no…they don’t. The baseline is they, like everyone else, is in a union, and that states are not sovereign entities…and you don’t get to vote on which parts of the Constitution you choose to abide by and which parts you simply ignore. There is a process by which the Constitution and it’s Amendments can be modified or even set aside, but a state can’t just vote on which ones it will or won’t abide by. At least, not in the real world. Perhaps in your fantasy world this is different, I couldn’t say.

You believe the citizens of the US should all get to say what powers the Illinois govt has.

puff puff Yeah man, I hear you. puff puff US…Illinois…government…puff puff…man, I can see right through my HAND!!

What is so magical about the union that the voters of each state elect monsters to the state govt and benevolent stewards of wisdom and clarity to the fed govt?

Aside from that little dust up that resolve this issue in the '60’s (that would be the 1860’s btw)? Nothing magical about it at all, even leaving your hyperbole aside. Those are good drugs though, I imagine.

In other words is the United States the perfect size for ensuring liberty for all?

No idea, but it’s a moot (or, perhaps it should have been mute) point, however…the reality is the states are part of a union, and operate equally under a Constitution, and they can’t arbitrarily set that Constitution aside. What would be the point of having a freaking Constitution if states could simply set it aside?? Hell, might as well simply split into 50 small, weak demi-nations where every state does it’s own thing in it’s own way…while waiting until some bigger fish gobbles them up.

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

I really hope this is sarcasm. You realize “the states” are not inherently evil because Abe Lincoln told you so. The citizens of each state should vote to say what powers they want their state government to have. You believe the citizens of the US should all get to say what powers the Illinois govt has.

What is so magical about the union that the voters of each state elect monsters to the state govt and benevolent stewards of wisdom and clarity to the fed govt?

In other words is the United States the perfect size for ensuring liberty for all?

One country. One set of rights. That seems like a good fit.

I can’t see why one country should have fifty different sets of rights.

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

Well, it’s a continuum, but certainly rights protected under the Constitution are harder to circumvent, ban or curtail…such as the lawn dart example used in either this thread or a similar one.

Okay, so there is a special status that derives from being a Constitutional right.

So my question (and the topic of the thread) remains: why should gun ownership be given this special status?

[XT]

@Little_Nemo

Okay, so there is a special status that derives from being a Constitutional right.

So my question (and the topic of the thread) remains: why should gun ownership be given this special status?

I thought I answered this one already. Let me turn it around…why shouldn’t it? Why are any of the rights in the Constitution granted, if not because there are sufficient people in the US who want them? Why do we protect speech or give freedom of religion or the right of assembly? I’ve given you my reason it should be (to summarize, because there is a large percentage of people who want it…Gun ownership, in the US, is one of our founding principals, and therefore it’s been enshrined and protected as such nearly from the beginning of this country.), so you tell me…what compelling reason is there to do away with it, in the face of that large number of citizens who want it?

That’s the bottom line with all the rights, after all, at least IMHO…we have them as rights because there is sufficient voter mass to maintain them, and if there isn’t they go away. ISTM the burden here is on those who want a change to explain why they want that change and how that works in the face of that current voter mass. I realize that most of the folks who are on your side are doing this by fiat, but you have to give some basis that’s grounded in reality for making such a shift, without the sea change in citizen attitude that you’d REALLY need to get it done…you can’t simply say ‘well, I don’t like it, so I’m waving my magic wand and making a new Constitution without any reference to it in there’…that’s hardly a solid debating position, at least from where I’m standing (well, sitting on the bed in my hotel room atm).

[WillFarnaby]

@XT

Nope, it was horror, perhaps coupled with a sense of disbelief that anyone could think such a thing is a good idea…or that anyone could seriously not understand that it would cut at the very heart of our Constitution if states could just wave Constitutional rights away.

The constitution was written to create a government with specific enumerated powers. It wasn’t to guarantee rights. This is a modern falsehood. In the absence of government we have free speech. The creation of a federal government did not give us free speech. Several states had state religions for example. The bill of rights was written to restrain the federal government. This is a strain of political thought going back to our founding. The fact that you are so surprised says more about you than me.

I realize that either the drugs have gotten to you or you are hallucinating and drifting into non sequitur.

:rolleyes:

Um, no…they don’t. The baseline is they, like everyone else, is in a union, and that states are not sovereign entities…and you don’t get to vote on which parts of the Constitution you choose to abide by and which parts you simply ignore. There is a process by which the Constitution and it’s Amendments can be modified or even set aside, but a state can’t just vote on which ones it will or won’t abide by. At least, not in the real world. Perhaps in your fantasy world this is different, I couldn’t say.

What parts am I saying they should ignore? You’re trying so hard to demagogue the issue your eyes are crossed. According to the OP we are constructing a constitution from scratch. In this document I suggested we forbid the government we are creating from infringing on the “right” to bear arms. Nuff said. Think. The type. This will save us a ton of time.

puff puff Yeah man, I hear you. puff puff US…Illinois…government…puff puff…man, I can see right through my HAND!!

The fact that you are on that sherm while I illuminate your sophistry is instructive, if tangential to the topic at hand.

Aside from that little dust up that resolve this issue in the '60’s (that would be the 1860’s btw)?

Riiiight, so Superman was with the Union and Lex Luthor was with the Confederacy? We all remember how Aquaman was there for the Monitor Vs Merrimac, but where was Wonder Woman in your comic book version of reality?

No idea, but it’s a moot (or, perhaps it should have been mute) point, however…the reality is the states are part of a union, and operate equally under a Constitution, and they can’t arbitrarily set that Constitution aside. What would be the point of having a freaking Constitution if states could simply set it aside?? Hell, might as well simply split into 50 small, weak demi-nations where every state does it’s own thing in it’s own way…while waiting until some bigger fish gobbles them up.

And that constitution would limit the federal government. Is that difficult to imagine? Try picking up a history book and flipping back past your god Abe Lincoln.
You are about the least imaginative little fella I’ve come across so far. And that’s saying a lot. From all the drug “jokes” and the cliche riddled non observations to repeating the drug “jokes” and cliche riddled non observations.

[XT]

[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
The constitution was written to create a government with specific enumerated powers. It wasn’t to guarantee rights. This is a modern falsehood. In the absence of government we have free speech. The creation of a federal government did not give us free speech. Several states had state religions for example. The bill of rights was written to restrain the federal government. This is a strain of political thought going back to our founding. The fact that you are so surprised says more about you than me.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, I’m not surprised by this, since I’ve said similar things myself before. I was surprised by your seeming lack of understanding that you can’t have states arbitrarily decide which parts of the Constitution they will or won’t abide by. The fact that you trot this out, rather than addressing that point says more about you than me.

:rolleyes:

Hey, you were the one rambling off on a tangent about Lincoln and inherent evil. If you are going to act crazy I’m going to treat you like a crazy person. Was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it was the drugs.

What parts am I saying they should ignore? You’re trying so hard to demagogue the issue your eyes are crossed. According to the OP we are constructing a constitution from scratch. In this document I suggested we forbid the government we are creating from infringing on the “right” to bear arms. Nuff said. Think. The type. This will save us a ton of time.

The citizens of each state should vote to say what powers they want their state government to have.

Of course, if you’d made it clear that you were talking about the process by which we should arrive at a new Constitution it might have saved us both some pain. I can sort of kind of see what you were getting at now, but it was far from clear that this is what you were getting at.

Oddly, I actually agree with you…I think. If we were to create a new Constitution then certainly the citizens would and should vote on it (sort of the point I was trying to make to Nemo). To be clear though, since I’m still not sure if I’m getting your drift, once that Constitution is ratified the states would abide by it…right? You are simply talking about the process of drafting and ratifying a new Constitution…correct?

The fact that you are on that sherm while I illuminate your sophistry is instructive, if tangential to the topic at hand.

Again, if you are going to say crazy shit and wander off topic then I’m going to treat you like a crazy person.

Riiiight, so Superman was with the Union and Lex Luthor was with the Confederacy? We all remember how Aquaman was there for the Monitor Vs Merrimac, but where was Wonder Woman in your comic book version of reality?

Case in point.

And that constitution would limit the federal government. Is that difficult to imagine? Try picking up a history book and flipping back past your god Abe Lincoln.

At this date, yeah…it’s hard to imagine. I doubt any version of a potential new Constitution would take the states back to their semi-sovereign roots. As I said, that question was settled during the Civil War. You seem to want to deny that, but reality is real. You might want to pick up a history book that includes everything that’s happened since the Revolution.

You are about the least imaginative little fella I’ve come across so far. And that’s saying a lot. From all the drug “jokes” and the cliche riddled non observations to repeating the drug “jokes” and cliche riddled non observations.

And you are one of the more bizarre posters to this thread, wandering off on rants about Lincoln and inherent evil and gods know what else. I’m still assuming it’s the drugs, but I suppose you could simply be this way all the time.

[WillFarnaby]

@XT

Of course, I’m not surprised by this, since I’ve said similar things myself before. I was surprised by your seeming lack of understanding that you can’t have states arbitrarily decide which parts of the Constitution they will or won’t abide by. The fact that you trot this out, rather than addressing that point says more about you than me.

If we followed my suggestion, the states would be abiding by the constitution even if they decided to enact gun bans because the bill of rights in this new constitution restrains only the federal government.

Of course, if you’d made it clear that you were talking about the process by which we should arrive at a new Constitution it might have saved us both some pain. I can sort of kind of see what you were getting at now, but it was far from clear that this is what you were getting at.

Oddly, I actually agree with you…I think. If we were to create a new Constitution then certainly the citizens would and should vote on it (sort of the point I was trying to make to Nemo). To be clear though, since I’m still not sure if I’m getting your drift, once that Constitution is ratified the states would abide by it…right? You are simply talking about the process of drafting and ratifying a new Constitution…correct?

Say we created a new constitution. An amendment is proposed that said the right to bear arms should not be infringed by any level of government, but it isn’t ratified. Then, an amendment was proposed that said the federal government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, and it is ratified. Maybe New York didn’t want to ratify the first version because in the past it had restrained their ability to pass gun laws. They might still be able to get behind the second version because it prevents the new federal government from going further than they would have with regard to gun laws.

At this date, yeah…it’s hard to imagine. I doubt any version of a potential new Constitution would take the states back to their semi-sovereign roots. As I said, that question was settled during the Civil War. You seem to want to deny that, but reality is real. You might want to pick up a history book that includes everything that’s happened since the Revolution.

I was offering my personal opinion. I doubt voters today would favor a decentralized republic, but I think it would be best.

Since when are matters of political theory settled by weapons. Political reality, yes, but theory is to be decided by reason, not coercion. Say I crash my car into your home. You sue me for the damages. When we show up at court, I bop you on the head, leaving you unconscious, and leave never to be seen again. Does this mean the matter of suing people for damages has been settled?

And you are one of the more bizarre posters to this thread, wandering off on rants about Lincoln and inherent evil and gods know what else. I’m still assuming it’s the drugs, but I suppose you could simply be this way all the time

.

You expressed shock and surprise that someone would favor giving the citizens of each state the right to decide what that particular state had power to do, instead of putting it up to a nationwide vote. I jumped to the conclusion that you were among those who believe the state governments are evil and the federal government was the protector of the people. Was I mistaken?

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

In the absence of government we have free speech.

Libertarian nonsense.

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

I thought I answered this one already. Let me turn it around…why shouldn’t it? Why are any of the rights in the Constitution granted, if not because there are sufficient people in the US who want them? Why do we protect speech or give freedom of religion or the right of assembly? I’ve given you my reason it should be (to summarize, because there is a large percentage of people who want it…Gun ownership, in the US, is one of our founding principals, and therefore it’s been enshrined and protected as such nearly from the beginning of this country.), so you tell me…what compelling reason is there to do away with it, in the face of that large number of citizens who want it?

That’s the bottom line with all the rights, after all, at least IMHO…we have them as rights because there is sufficient voter mass to maintain them, and if there isn’t they go away. ISTM the burden here is on those who want a change to explain why they want that change and how that works in the face of that current voter mass. I realize that most of the folks who are on your side are doing this by fiat, but you have to give some basis that’s grounded in reality for making such a shift, without the sea change in citizen attitude that you’d REALLY need to get it done…you can’t simply say ‘well, I don’t like it, so I’m waving my magic wand and making a new Constitution without any reference to it in there’…that’s hardly a solid debating position, at least from where I’m standing (well, sitting on the bed in my hotel room atm).

I also feel I’ve addressed these points.

If the reason a right exists is because a large percentage of people want it (I’m assuming 51%) then should the right cease to exist if a large percentage of people change their mind? Do rights only exist because the majority supports those rights? Or do you feel that some rights should exist even if the majority disagrees with them?

[BrainGlutton]

@WillFarnaby

On second thought what the heck are you talking about because mobility has increased in every conceivable way?

That was my point.

[BrainGlutton]

@XT

Why are any of the rights in the Constitution granted, if not because there are sufficient people in the US who want them?

Because there were sufficient people in the U.S. in 1788 who wanted them, that’s why. But, we owe our ancestors nothing. Edmund Burke spouted nothing but bullshit on that particular point.

[BrainGlutton]

@XT

That’s the bottom line with all the rights, after all, at least IMHO…we have them as rights because there is sufficient voter mass to maintain them, and if there isn’t they go away.

That is not so with respect to constitutional rights, which by design are set above-and-outside the reach of the ordinary political/electoral/legislative process. The question here is where bearing arms should be one of those or not.

[WillFarnaby]

@BrainGlutton

“Keeping as much power with the people as possible” does not necessarily equate to “local autonomy.”

Yes it does. Do you have more influence over your own actions than your family? Do you have influence over your family than your neighborhood? More influence over your neighborhood than your city? More influence over your city than state? Why doesn’t it follow that you have more influence over your state than country.

@Ibn_Warraq

Will, how would this work with the 14th Amendment in place?

Are you calling for repealing it?

If not a repeal, then a strict interpretation.

@Little_Nemo

One country. One set of rights. That seems like a good fit.

I can’t see why one country should have fifty different sets of rights.

We are born with rights. Only governments can infringe on those rights legally. As it is now, the federal government has more or less monopoly control over which rights are being infringed and to what degree. I am saying we should take away the ability of the federal government to infringe on our rights. Then comes state governments, which I also believe should be strictly limited in their ability to infringe on our rights. Just because I think the right to bear arms is a good idea, I don’t want to foist my agenda on those of another state. Just like I don’t want to foist my agenda on my neighbors, and most people agree we shouldn’t foist our agenda on foreign countries ( to my dismay this second one is becoming less and less true).

You think the federal govt is the optimum size, fine. I think it’s too large. Too many people are living under laws, both state and federal, that they just don’t agree with. This means the will of the people is not being carried out in an efficient manner. If you break it down into smaller units that have some autonomy, I think folks would be happier. If they’re not, it’s easy to move nowadays. Some people would like to live in a liberal utopia. This isn’t possible under our current system. Some people would like to live in a Libertopia. That isn’t possible either. Under a decentralized structure, there is more opportunity for diversity.

[BrainGlutton]

@WillFarnaby

Riiiight, so Superman was with the Union and Lex Luthor was with the Confederacy?

Probably.

@WillFarnaby

Try picking up a history book and flipping back past your god Abe Lincoln.

Read this. It’ll help.

[WillFarnaby]

@Little_Nemo

Libertarian nonsense.

Imagine a world without government. How would your free speech be hampered in such a society?

[tomndebb]

@WillFarnaby

You are about the least imaginative little fella I’ve come across so far. And that’s saying a lot. From all the drug “jokes” and the cliche riddled non observations to repeating the drug “jokes” and cliche riddled non observations.

@XT

And you are one of the more bizarre posters to this thread, wandering off on rants about Lincoln and inherent evil and gods know what else. I’m still assuming it’s the drugs, but I suppose you could simply be this way all the time.

Back off. This is Great Debates, not The BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[BrainGlutton]

@WillFarnaby

Imagine a world without government. How would your free speech be hampered in such a society?

I rather doubt there’s much of it in Somalia right now. The government won’t shut you up, but your neighbors, clan-chiefs and warlords probably will.

[WillFarnaby]

@BrainGlutton

Probably.

Read this. It’ll help.

Does it say anything about his white suprema… Ah forget about it. If we can’t come to a consensus on Lincoln, we can’t come to a consensus on anything.

[WillFarnaby]

@BrainGlutton

I rather doubt there’s much of it in Somalia right now. The government won’t shut you up, but your neighbors, clan-chiefs and warlords probably will.

That’s a country without law or government. Law can exist in absence of government.

[BrainGlutton]

@WillFarnaby

That’s a country without law or government. Law can exist in absence of government.

In theory, but there are few actual historical instances.