I don't get liberal gun laws.

[Sir Neil]

1194102309[/unixtime]] Which one is which, again?

The first says they can't make a Church of America, or muffle speech, and you can bitch to the government.

The second amendment says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The eighth says no cruel and unusual punishment.

The tenth says unenumerated powers belong to the states or to the people. The Feds can't do fuck-all.

In practice, of course, the 2nd is infringed all the time, and the 10th is already in the circular file. Everytime the radio plays Justin Timberlake, I get kicked right in the 8th, and the goddamn 9th circuit court is always donkey punching one amendment or another.

Thinking about this (or 4chan) for too long sends my libertarian heart into a spiral of rage, so I try to avoid these topics as best I can.

And the board is filled with Socialists and Commies? Woah. Being a foreigner (to America), I guess that'd make me one of the Communists, right?

Probably not. I get the impression that Not-America is run by either benign socialism or brutal autocracy, depending on if it's a third world nation or not.

Funny you mention it, though. I was going to the store to pick up a blazer to conceal my armor and service pistol and I thought, "I should've added 'foreign national' to my list of Denziens."

[Neeek]

1194126423[/unixtime]]
The tenth says unenumerated powers belong to the states or to the people. The Feds can't do fuck-all.

That's a pretty incorrect version of what that amendment says. It, in fact, specifically does not say enumerated anywhere in it. I say specifically because that word was purposely left out when they copied it from the Articles of Confederation.

Further, it was largely overridden by the 14th Amendment.

[CalibronXXX]

Fucking 9th circuit court; why can't some damned judges be content with doing their job and not have to practically re-write the laws they're supposed to be adjudicating to further their fucking agendas?

Thanks for the explanation Frank, didn't realize "controlling political policy by controlling media output, therefor controlling the way most of the populace thinks and feels" could be condensed down to "fourth estate"; good to know. and yeah, that's a bad thing.

[tzor]

The "wall of separation" that was claimed by Jefferson in the First Amendment between church and state has to be understood in the context of the time and in the definition of the appropriate words. (It also has to be understood in that the constitution only applied to the Federal government at the time.)

The United States, forming a constitution to rise from the ashes of the exceptionally horrid Articles of Confederation, still had a number of gripes with the nation that it had only recently gotten a political divorce from; England.

In England, the King was head of the State, and the head of the Church (of England). This is what the separation of Church (not religion) and State was all about. Jefferson was a bit extreme about the whole thing; he considered it illegal for the President to declare a national holiday (because days of feasts or fasts belong to the head of a church not a state).

Mind you that at the signing of the Constitution several states did in fact have state religions. These states felt guilty and under some pressure dropped the state religions in favor of separation clauses at a lower level.

It should be also pointed out that a religious freedom amendment to the Mass constitution proposed by John Adams after the Constitution was put into effect was soundly rejected by the good people. Separation of Church and State was not the same as blanket persecuation of a people because of their religious beliefs.

[Koumei]

You know, I'm not a big fan of the "teach kids all about guns" idea. Teach them that guns kill people, sure. But kids are already growing up too fast and becoming disillusioned. Childhood probably was when I was at my happiest, and probably because ignorance really is bliss, as long as you have enough of it.

And I've never understood why some Americans feel so strongly about the constitution itself - not individual rights, I think it's fantastic to not be allowed to torture people (and be extended the same courtesy by others) and be allowed to voice my opinions on the prime minister, but some seem to treat the constitution as a whole as some kind of holy text.

I mean, I don't think I know any Australian who knows or cares much about the Australian constitution. The only part I can actually tell you is that, while every man and his dog can decide to have his own nation within Australia, it's unconstitutional to actually secede from the country. Western Australia once tried it, and the rest of Australia waved the constitution at them and laughed, even though we'd be happy if they became their own nation (or dropped into the ocean, for that matter).

Also, on the NRA and the second amendment: I recall reading somewhere that the NRA doesn't try using that as a reason to allow people to keep their weapon of choice. I could easily be wrong (or rather, my source cold be), but I think they basically said that the amendment means "an actual militia" and not "Gazza and Bazza with their shotgun and AK-47".

But I'm not sure. Maybe they do try using the constitution as a sacred shield.

[CalibronXXX]

They're portrayed as doing so endlessly, but I doubt they really do.

[technomancer]

You know, I'm not a big fan of the "teach kids all about guns" idea. Teach them that guns kill people, sure. But kids are already growing up too fast and becoming disillusioned. Childhood probably was when I was at my happiest, and probably because ignorance really is bliss, as long as you have enough of it.

It's not like you have to take them out and show them edu-slaughter videos showing all sorts of horrible things that happen when bullets meet flesh. Personally, I enjoy target shooting, and I have for a very long time. Some of my earliest memories are at a shooting range with my family, and we didn't even go shooting that often. You just have to teach your children that you never, ever point the gun at someone, even if you think the gun isn't loaded.

Out of curiosity, do you feel you shouldn't let children take archery lessons because arrows kill, and you shouldn't expose children to such deadly things? How about Go Carts? It's harder to be deadly with go-carts, but it's still possible.

People let their children perform potentially deadly activities all the time. (to themselves, even if not to others) I learned how to swim around the age of 4 or so, and people drown all the time. The key is safety education and supervision.

[Koumei]

I never said to shield them from dangerous things. But not to teach them about shooting. Teach them about *not* shooting - let them know guns kill people, and that you never point them at anyone, always have safety on until you intend to actually pull the trigger etc. Then follow up with "and guns aren't for kids, so you can't have one."

Maybe even go on to say "Also, you can't have a pony." depending on how much the kid wants a gun.

Go karting, once they actually have the coordination needed to do so (so, when their legs are long enough to reach the peddles; it really isn't hard), is fine. A lot of fun, too, and it doesn't necessitate them growing up any faster. Teach them how to do it safely, of course.

Archery, that's something I'd leave to the early teen years, and only target archery, not hunting. Yes, I'd also warn them "don't fire at people." and all the usual safety instructions.

But guns are another matter. Heck, the longer you can prevent anyone from having a gun, the better, really, but beyond that, once you start teaching children how to properly use guns, you're already beginning to stamp out childhood and force them to grow up. Instead, teach them the safety tips and then tell them they can't have a gun. And if they get one anyway, then there's a certain age where you seriously can just take shit away from them, and when you stop being able to, hopefully they've learned and aren't in their youth any more anyway.

[Crissa]

I rather was told I would fail a course in school if I did not participate in firearms. Eventually I buckled, but I did tell them I knew not to point them at people and that I had no wish to learn how to operate one.

What learning how to operate these things has to do with safety I will never know - as most of the accidental shootings happen to/by 'experienced' or 'trained' firearm owners.

And honestly, where in the document does it say 'not regulated by the government'? It says regulated. That really should mean the government can and should tell you that you don't have the right to put a shotgun on the side of your bed.

Also, what the heck do you (anyone but Frank, since I know what he thinks) think the tenth amendment is supposed to mean, anyhow? It's supposed to mean that No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional - but it does not say the Federal Government can't spend money on education.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1194182693[/unixtime]]
And honestly, where in the document does it say 'not regulated by the government'? It says regulated. That really should mean the government can and should tell you that you don't have the right to put a shotgun on the side of your bed.

That is your interpretation of what it should mean. It doesn't overtly say that the government is the source of the regulation. Hence the latitude.

[Sir Neil]

You're right, Neeek. "Unenumerated" isn't in there. I wonder why.

And I've never understood why some Americans feel so strongly about the constitution itself...

*shrugs* It's a cultural thing.

I rather was told I would fail a course in school if I did not participate in firearms.

What fucked up school did you go to? Please tell me your parents raised holy hell.

[Judging__Eagle]

1177813605[/unixtime]]I can teach you how to make a bomb out of a roll of toilet paper and a stick of dynamite.

If you can teach me how to make one without a blasting cap I'd be really impressed.

[tzor]

1194147359[/unixtime]]You know, I'm not a big fan of the "teach kids all about guns" idea. Teach them that guns kill people, sure. But kids are already growing up too fast and becoming disillusioned. Childhood probably was when I was at my happiest, and probably because ignorance really is bliss, as long as you have enough of it.

First of all I don't think "kids" should get taught about guns. I think that "teenagers" especially in high school should be given "hunter's safety courses." Those courses are in fact what you are suggesting, how dangerous a firearm is and how you should always treat one as though it might be loaded at all times.

[tzor]

1194182693[/unixtime]]Also, what the heck do you (anyone but Frank, since I know what he thinks) think the tenth amendment is supposed to mean, anyhow? It's supposed to mean that No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional - but it does not say the Federal Government can't spend money on education.

The 10th ammendment was partially eliminated by a number of amendments passed after the civil war, but for the most part it is simply bypassed. The method to bypass the 10th ammendment is that technically the federal goverment doesn't tell the states what to do; instead the federal goverment gives the states money and once the states become addicted to federal dollars the federal government puts strings to those dollars so that if they want to keep up their money fix they have to follow the whims of the federal government. This is how "no child left behind" operates. This was also how the federal government enforced the 55MPH speed limit passed in the 70's.

[Crissa]

I know how it does work, tzor, the question was, what did people think it was supposed to mean?

-Crissa

[tzor]

1194223352[/unixtime]]I know how it does work, tzor, the question was, what did people think it was supposed to mean?

In 1776 thirteen "states" got together and declared themselves free of England and comissioned General George Washington as a means to address the common problem of defense. After the war the states attempted to set up a loose confederation which failed completely.

The constitution was designed to provide a means to give a federal authority with some power while at the same time not really causing the invidual states to loose any of their own powers in return. Significant differences among the states (small states vs large states, slave states vs free states) gave a strong power to those who opposed excessive federalism. Eleven amendments were proposed as a means to get the states to approve the constitution. (One amendment wasn't approved until the 20th century which was a limit on how congress could approve their own pay raises.) The 10th amendment put a significant limitation on the power of the federal government giving all potential future powers to the individual states and not the federal government.

[power_word_wedgie]

That's my interpretation as well. For example, we here in Indiana don't take the federal highways funds, and hence we don't have emission control checks like other states due to federal mandate.

[technomancer]

1194180722[/unixtime]]once you start teaching children how to properly use guns, you're already beginning to stamp out childhood and force them to grow up.

I guess we have a fundamental imcompatability in how we look at guns. I don't see teaching children about gun safety and taking them to the shooting range as 'stamping out childhood,' but for you, that level of responsibility is a milestone of leaving childhood behind. There are definatly merits to your viewpoint, I just don't agree with it, so I guess that's that.

[Koumei]

That's not how the Internet works. I think you're supposed to call me a cockbag or something.

Seriously, I do understand your point of view, and if we're talking about actual teenagers then go for it as they've most likely had their childhood stamped out and set fire to - while still being young enough to think that's a good thing.

But for children say 10 and under, while I see your point, it's not something I feel able to agree with.

[Neeek]

1194229750[/unixtime]]Eleven amendments were proposed as a means to get the states to approve the constitution.

It was twelve. The original First Amendment was never passed.

[Username17]

Original First Article of the Bill of Rights:

After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Seriously. I don't think we're going to ratify that one. Ever.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

1194147359[/unixtime]]And I've never understood why some Americans feel so strongly about the constitution itself - not individual rights, I think it's fantastic to not be allowed to torture people (and be extended the same courtesy by others) and be allowed to voice my opinions on the prime minister, but some seem to treat the constitution as a whole as some kind of holy text.

Holy text in the same sense as bible thumpers use theirs. ie don't read it just pretend it says what you want. I don't get it either, the US is an odd place with many strange customs.

Fox News is a bigger threat to the US than guns. The whole gun debate is just another neat card to pull out when they want some largely irrelevant crap to distract people from the fact that they spew hateful propaganda.

[tzor]

In order to understand how important the Constitution was to the early United States Government it is important to understand how the people who founded the government viewed other governments that did how have the systems they put in place in that constitution. John Adams blamed the failure of the French Revolution on the lack of seperation of powers and a bicameral legislature.

It is then, highly ironc that the keystone to the Constitution isn't really in the Constitution. Technically there is nothing explicit that says that the supreme court may invalidate a law because it violated the constitution. But by writing specific methods for the admendment of the constitution it implied that it was impossible to amend the constitution by any other means and thus regular laws could not amend or in effect trump the constitution. There is, however no requirement for the Supreme Court to do this. Their doing so probably cemented the government far better than either the seperation of powers or the bicameral legislature ever did.

But the Constitution is a true living doument. It even has it's share of embarrasing grafitti (aka Prohbition) that required another amednment to remove it. We hold it important because it works.

[Crissa]

Ironically, they learned from Prohibition and instead used other, more dubious and less forward ways of denying access to recreational ingestion.

-Crissa

[Koumei]

And they're not working either. I mean, look at the War on Drugs. That's a bigger failure than the War on Terror. They may as well just go the route of prohibition, giving how it's only succeeding at pissing people off.