The American Constitution

[Yorick]

Night Stalcker,

I don't fear being shot. What on earth makes you think I am?
Because I'm anti-gun?

I'm not a kid in a gang, or trading drugs. I'm not suicidal with a gun in my closet. I'm not practicing road rage and abusing other motorists. Why would I fear getting shot?

One more thing about the "get out if you don't like it you rude guest" schtick.

It's the ultimate declaration of a persons ideological failure in an argument, to, rather than defeat a person through facts, logic and persuasion, to attempt to BAN the person from expressing an opinion.

I don't care who or where you're from MagiK, but I have as much right to express my opinion on the international world wide web, as much as the next person.

And - to use your sentiments - if you don't like it you can always leave the internet.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Oh, and on that thought about protecting Freedom by restricting it. There is a serious flaw to that - namely, you can't. You either protect and enable freedom or you restrict it - you can't protect by restricting.

As has been said numerous times here, you can rob Peter to pay Paul. In allowing one freedom, you restrict something else.

It comes down to prioritisation as Barry so eloquently stated.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

New York, even though it has pretty tough gun laws compared to the rest of the country, is still not free to determine it's own solutions to a worsening problem because a constitution made before it developed the character it has, are, as Donut put it...."sacrosanct."

Actualy NY went berzerk enforcing its gun laws after 9/11. More specificaly the city went realy overboard.My wife and I had to re register all of my fire arms and re apply for all of our permits to still keep on the right side of the law. I have also heard that if you are caught with a fire arm of any type and dont have the right documentation , I.E. registration/carry permit/concealed carry permit,it is a MANDATORY 2 year jail sentance.

[AliCat]

I'll apologize in advance if I repeat anyone's arguments; I read the first page of this topic, but I don't have time to read through the rest (especially as certain arguments keep being repeated).

I also do not think a majority of Americans are gun-toting or gun-supporting. None of my family and none of my friends own guns. I see no reason to own a gun. I've heard stories here and elsewhere about people who keep a gun in the house against robbers; I think the likelihood is extremely low of being able to access that gun, especially if it is "safely locked away", before a housebreaker is upon their victim. Hunting? Just another name for people who enjoy killing other creatures for "sport". I live in an area highly populated by hunters, most of which use tree stands. A lot of "sport" in laying food out on the ground, climbing up to your stand or blind, and shooting the deer (bear, wild turkey, and so forth) that comes over to have a munch.

I've lived in New York City. I've walked 42nd Street at midnight, alone, on my way to the subway. I've lived in suburbs and urban areas. I've lived in South Dakota. I have never needed a gun. Yes, I've been in threatening situations. However, a gun would not have helped.

I've been in the military and can fire handarms and rifle. I trust the average citizen with a gun about as much as I trust a monkey with a jet plane. A lot of us feel that way.

Is it going to change in this binge-drinking, machismo-flaunting society? Unlikely. Too many of that sort are in Congress, or are supported by their big-money buddies who feel the same way.

I think I mentioned before in a similar topic that Marion Zimmer Bradley's series set on a planet called Darkover had suggested a Compact, that was developed after a telepathic series of wars based on chemical warfare: No weapons were allowed that did not put the user within arm's reach of the other person. I really like this concept; guns too easily distance you from your victim, emotionally as well as physically (and allowing snipers to exist without qualms).

AliCat

P.S. I am unlikely to look back at this page, so feel free to email me if you want to respond personally.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: As for the words of the Constitution I'm a super strict constructionalist. ie: the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion". Not seperation of Church and State. That has come about by Supreme Court decesions, totaly ignoring the unquieness of the 1st amendment. Unlike the other amendments that make up the bill of rights, the 1st amend. is the only one that specificaly mentions a branch of the government. All of the rest of the amend. make a statement about what is a right of the people without any qualifers about a specific branch of the government. What about laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays. Even the statement referenced above has been the subject of hundreds of thousands of pages of judicial interpretation. Even the world's most *strict* constructionalist, Justice Scalia, has succumbed to interpretation on this very Amendment, albeit the "free exercise" clause of the Amendment. And quite creative it was. Changed a hundred years of "free exercise" jurisprudence. See Smith v. Employment Division. I'm just pointing out that even a constructionalist must *interpret.* [edit] While I'm at it, I may as well throw a monkey wrench in our 1st Amendment discussion. As you state congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But, juxtapose that with another statement from the Same AMendment: Congress shall may no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But don't try to let your Christian Scientist belief get you off the hook for failure to take your kid to the doctor. DOn't think your satanic beliefs allow you to kill people in sacrifice. Santaria practicers can still get prosecuted under humane treatment laws for being cruel to protected animals (like dogs, not like chickens). And, as in Smith v. Employment Division, American Indians cannot get employment benefits when they were fired from eating peyote at work, no matter their religious beliefs. In short, the constitutional test for "free exercise" is based, first and foremost, on whether or not you are asserting the practice of an "established religion" That sound suspiciously like a law respecting established religions, doesn't it? I thought that was prohibited? Wow, this stuff is way more complicated than the constructionalist can handle.

Not really As I said the Seperation of Church and State as we know it has come down through court decesions, but the courts aren't perfect see Dread Scott Now here's the real kicker as a "Super strick constructionalist" the Courts CAN make those decesions about religion and we the people MUST live with it (if we wish to be a nation of laws). Amend 1 says Congress can't do it, but says nothing about the courts, states, President, or any other branch of Government. Which now leaves me in the dreaded postion of allowing the courts to make law (hack, cough, spit, barf). Some times I wish the founding fathers had said "Freedom of religion shall not be infringed" without the Government qualifer. But then we would be opening up a "Whole 'nother can of worms" as you showed in the examples you gave.

[True_Moose]

If I am correct then it seems to me like the Constitution is not that much more than a set of very large guidelines...at least that seems to be its role here. It also seems like (no nationalist attacks here) that the Americans are really wound up with their constitution remaining the way it is. Sure it seems like ours is rather new (1982!), but there are changes going on frequently.

Of course it's also not set in stone. Take for example, the 18th amendment (prohibition), or of course, the original constitution saying that a black man's life was worth 1/2 that of a white man. It does change, and things like gun control are addressed.

BTW, I should mention that there were more children and adults killed last year in accidental discharges than there were intruders or used in self-defence. (not that I really want to get into that)

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: quote: In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides.(SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).) What do these figures tell you?

Tbut according to this statistic 62% of murders in that year WERE NOT caused by guns!! .[/QUOTE]That's not what it says at all. Check it out again. The 38% is the number of gun deaths that were homicides. It's not a percentage of murders. The rest were mostly suicides. Suicide is more effective with a gun.

What is that saying about society? Two problems linked together. Suicide and a gun.[/QUOTE]You are right about what is says about society, but wrong about what it says about guns. The people that are commiting suicide 68% found a way to do it with out guns, you can't seriously believe that the 52% would not of found a way to kill themsleves without guns. Anybody that comes to the point (for whatever reason) that they are willing to seriously commit suicide is not going to be stopped by not having a gun, 58% of the suicides testify against that logic.

Edit for bad math

[ 10-22-2002, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: quote: In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides.(SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).) What do these figures tell you?

Tbut according to this statistic 62% of murders in that year WERE NOT caused by guns!! .[/QUOTE]That's not what it says at all. Check it out again. The 38% is the number of gun deaths that were homicides. It's not a percentage of murders. The rest were mostly suicides. Suicide is more effective with a gun.

What is that saying about society? Two problems linked together. Suicide and a gun.[/QUOTE]You are right about what is says about society, but wrong about what it says about guns. The people that are commiting suicide 68% found a way to do it with out guns, you can't seriously believe that the 52% would not of found a way to kill themsleves without guns. Anybody that comes to the point (for whatever reason) that they are willing to seriously commit suicide is not going to be stopped by not having a gun, 58% of the suicides testify against that logic.

Edit for bad math [/QUOTE]John. That figure is not a percentage of suicides, nor homicides as Hunter read, but a percentage of gun deaths.

Gun deaths = Homocides (38%) Suicides (58%) Other? (4%)

These are the figures for gun percentages of suicide in 1999:

Firearm suicides USA
16,599
56.8%

All Other Methods USA
12,600
43.2%

------------------------------
Firearm suicides Young
2,315
59.3%

All Other Young
1,586
40.7%

Firearm suicides Old
3,921
71.4%

All Other Old
1,568
28.6%

Firearm suicides Male
14,479
61.7%

All Other Male
8,979
38.3%

Firearm suicides Female
2,120
36.9%

All Other Female
3,621
63.1%

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Great site, and great quotes. I must say that I'm suspect regarding one big presumption of the forefathers: that an armed populace would always overwhelm the government in times of need. I worry that in the modern day this is not the case. Especially since there are whole classes of arms open to the government that average individuals cannot afford and are not permitted to own. 20mm Autocannons with an "indiscresible" rate of fire sorta take the sails out of the notion that we can all grab our revolvers and march on Washington if the government gets too far out of line. Not like I expect marshall law to be instituted anytime soon, I'm just sayin'.

A country boy with a .22 squirel riffle can get himself one of those niffty 20mm autocannons

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: quote: New York, even though it has pretty tough gun laws compared to the rest of the country, is still not free to determine it's own solutions to a worsening problem because a constitution made before it developed the character it has, are, as Donut put it...."sacrosanct."

Actualy NY went berzerk enforcing its gun laws after 9/11. More specificaly the city went realy overboard.My wife and I had to re register all of my fire arms and re apply for all of our permits to still keep on the right side of the law. I have also heard that if you are caught with a fire arm of any type and dont have the right documentation , I.E. registration/carry permit/concealed carry permit,it is a MANDATORY 2 year jail sentance.[/QUOTE]Sure but you still had to have a permit, not get rid of them altogether.

It's understandable given the threat of terrorism too don't you think?