Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
haha i really wanted to have watched some of his movies so i could talk from experience. i was expecting to be presented with offensive material but i didnt expect it to be presented in such an unenteraining manner. i will try to watch the ones you guys recommended.
its fortunate for americans that we are in a position to suggest we only need guns for hunting and protection of our homes from invasion. i do believe the right exists for tyrannical government and we should have access to weapons that could be meaningfully used if the government is our enemy. it seems crazy to us, but maybe not so much to the people of repressive regimes. current examples may be libya, egypt, africa, cuba, north korea. maybe the jews in europe around the time of ww2, im sure there are many other examples (ill include the "palestinians" in the "occupied terrotories" for balance). you use the example of a musket being the weapon when the constitution was made, but that was the best weapon available at the time.
My point in mentioning the musket was to highlight the fact that the COTUS is a living, breathing and evolving document. The Founding Fathers had no ability to predict the types of weaponry that we would have access to in the future, let alone that we would no longer be owning slaves worth 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation in the government.
Therefore, the belief that the COTUS somehow imparts an eternal right to own "arms" of any type is a poor argument. What about tanks, figher jets, missile launchers and atomic bombs? Are those all not "arms" under its classical definition? If we already de facto agree that certain "arms" should not be possessed by private citizens do to the danger they pose, why then is it not reasonable to limit the types of firearms allowed as well?
Given the power and technology available to our current military it is hardly reasonable that Americans possessing AK-47's would pose much of a threat in the event our government decided to wage war against us.
I circle back to the point that no one can make a reasonable argument for why these types of weapons are needed, other than the COTUS says so, which as outlined above is open to interpretation.
no part of the constitution mentions any clauses about "living, breathing document"
the wording is very specific and clear
and the 14th amendment applies it to the states
if you want to change the constitution, stop being dishonest about what it says, and just advocate for its change
and no, tanks and atomic bombs are not arms. Those are vehicles and complex machines, respectively. And anyway police power allows us to outlaw them - the 2nd only requires that the states do not outlaw arms entirely.
no part of the constitution mentions any clauses about "living, breathing document"
Yet it is, because the wording is open to interpretation and it can be ammended. The document was purposefully written that way, hence why those who believe in a "literal" interpretation of the COTUS are constantly searching and invoking "intent of the Founding Fathers". The fact of the matter is that much of the laws in the United States that impact are views on the COTUS are legal decisions that interpreted meaning where none was clear.
Quote:
the wording is very specific and clear
No it isn't.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What is inferred by a well regulated militia? At the time the COTUS was drafted the militia was the primary unit of defense for the nation and this clause was important to the state supremacy crowd as the militia was the military force of the state. This force is now what we call the National Guard. That fact in and of itself opens debate over the necessity of the people to bear arms as the states now possess a "well regulated militia".
The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is also vague as it does not define what arms the people should be allowed to keep. The entire amendment traces its lineage back to the English Bill of Rights in 1689 that specifically addressed the issue of Protestants being banned to carry arms by decree of King James II. The issue was not arms themselves, but banning some groups while permitting it to others. The English Bill of Rights recognized that people had a natural right to defend themselves and their property as was the case for all of time. It did, however, limit that right to "arms approved to be lawfully possessed".
So, what did the Founders really intend, who knows. The Supreme Court has interpreted it that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but that similar to the English tradition, laws are allowed to restrict the types of arms afforded to the people.
Quote:
and the 14th amendment applies it to the states
As well as all other federal laws and constitutional guarantees. I fail to see how this changes the question.
Quote:
if you want to change the constitution, stop being dishonest about what it says, and just advocate for its change
I'm not being dishonest about what it says, I'm simply stating what it says to me. I don't think we need to amend the COTUS over this issue as to me it is a matter of control and restriction as to what arms are allowed not the complete banning of arms.
Quote:
and no, tanks and atomic bombs are not arms. Those are vehicles and complex machines, respectively.
arm n.1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
the wording is no more open to "interpretation" than any other law. What we call "interpretation" usually is more accurately described as "ascertaining", which is how it more often used to be described. The words say what they say, and words have meaning. For example, If SCOTUS upheld a Southern-state anti-vulgarity law, they'd still be wrong even if they're SCOTUS because of what the first amendment clearly says. Ditto any law. Any suggestion otherwise is an appeal to authority fallacy.
The first "militia" clause does not change the instructions of the second. The second clause is written in the imperative mood, it is a legal command. The first clause describes at least one reason that at least one or a few of the ratifiers felt the law was necessary. Laws are frequently written with descriptions of their reasons. Such clauses never affect the actual law. To pretend they do would be absurd and unprecedented. If the one of the "reasons" of a law being in place is "fulfilled", it does not change the clear instructions of the law.
"right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not in any way vague. Arms are weapons in general, and at the time was almost solely used to refer to powder-based weaponry.
Oh? Does the dictionary say that? Really? Wonderful. Luckily language isn't a dictionary. Dictionaries list all possible uses of a word. Actual context and the frequency of the the actual definition used is a whole nother matter. Arms is usually used to refer to handheld weapons.
All you've managed to do is the typical tactics of anyone arguing something that is clearly false and ludicrous, that is obfuscate the definitions of words and try to remove them from context and you even pulled the "look, it's in the dictionary!" B.S. to try and justify using words out of their actual context. You're like the dbag who blurts "YOU KNOW BUFFALOS ARE ACTUALLY JUST A KIND OF COW. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY BISON", Yes, re-re, scientifically speaking, but that doesn't change the fact that "buffalo" the vast majority of the time is used to refer to the hump-backed, American, brown roaming ruminant. Stop being a liar and drop the aspberger's routine.
This force is now what we call the National Guard. That fact in and of itself opens debate over the necessity of the people to bear arms as the states now possess a "well regulated militia".
i also agree that the constitution isnt quite as vague as people seem to wish to make it. you are saying above that the existence of the national guard may negate people's right to bear arms? hmmm i definitely dont see it that way.
but i think the national guard should be our military, not the military that we have all over the world. i believe our elected idiots are currently struggling with the idea of cutting about 4.5% of its budget. our military should be cutting more like 50% of its budget.
No real shock here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The protest movement Occupy DC stormed the Washington Convention center on Friday night. About five dozen Occupy DC members gathered to protest the conservative free market group Americans for Prosperity “Defending the American Dream†summit dinner. A half a dozen people were either arrested or given citations.
As they tried to force their way into the building, protestors shoved both an elderly gentleman and an elderly lady to the ground. The elderly woman, reportedly 78-year old Dolores Broderson, fell down a flight of stairs outside the convention center. Broderson was taken by ambulance to the hospital.
Occupy DC protestors also tried to break down the doors of the convention center to enter. Protestors moved metal trash cans to block exits, stopping a woman in a wheelchair from leaving.
Yet it is, because the wording is open to interpretation and it can be ammended. The document was purposefully written that way, hence why those who believe in a "literal" interpretation of the COTUS are constantly searching and invoking "intent of the Founding Fathers". The fact of the matter is that much of the laws in the United States that impact are views on the COTUS are legal decisions that interpreted meaning where none was clear.
No it isn't.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What is inferred by a well regulated militia? At the time the COTUS was drafted the militia was the primary unit of defense for the nation and this clause was important to the state supremacy crowd as the militia was the military force of the state. This force is now what we call the National Guard. That fact in and of itself opens debate over the necessity of the people to bear arms as the states now possess a "well regulated militia".
The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is also vague as it does not define what arms the people should be allowed to keep. The entire amendment traces its lineage back to the English Bill of Rights in 1689 that specifically addressed the issue of Protestants being banned to carry arms by decree of King James II. The issue was not arms themselves, but banning some groups while permitting it to others. The English Bill of Rights recognized that people had a natural right to defend themselves and their property as was the case for all of time. It did, however, limit that right to "arms approved to be lawfully possessed".
So, what did the Founders really intend, who knows. The Supreme Court has interpreted it that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but that similar to the English tradition, laws are allowed to restrict the types of arms afforded to the people.
As well as all other federal laws and constitutional guarantees. I fail to see how this changes the question.
I'm not being dishonest about what it says, I'm simply stating what it says to me. I don't think we need to amend the COTUS over this issue as to me it is a matter of control and restriction as to what arms are allowed not the complete banning of arms.
arm n.1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
Well it wouldn't be "police power", but legislative power that allows us to do that, but thank you for agreeing with me.
if people wanted to uphold a strict interpretation of the words in the constitution across the board, the 2nd amendment does not give "people" the right to bear arms..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - a strict interpretation would recognize that the right of people to keep and bear arms is directly tied to the necessity of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
since a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, a "strict" interpretation has been long forgotten, and now we interpret it to mean that a person has the right to bear arms to protect their home/property.
i have no problem with people being able to get guns. i actually agree with the looser interpretation of the wording, but believe there should be rules in place. funny that the conventional "constitutionalists" are the ones who are against a strict interpretation of the consitution on this particular topic...
this is typical of an elitist socialist, one set of rules for the political elite and another for the humble masses.
oh and i think you are confusing the moore buying a "lifetime membership" with him being a member most of his life. i wasnt able to find exactly when he joined, but he says he bought a lifetime membership to run for the presidency of the organization and push gun control through it (referenced charleton heston who was its president from 1998-2003 so id assume sometime during that period). he decided to instead make the movie bowling for columbine as running for president of nra would take too much time (more realistically he wouldnt be able to win that election).
he's from Michigan, and has been around guns his whole life. he's not anti-gun, which you would see if you actually viewed Bowling for Columbine. His message wasn't anti-gun in that movie by any means.
Roger & Me - Highlighted the destruction of America's manufacturing base and the impact it had on towns and families as auto companies which were at the time generating record profits continued to offshore their labor.
The Big One - Again attacking corporations for globalization and causing massive layoffs even in the face of record profits. He mainly attacks Nike for closing its US plants and moving production to Indonesia.
Bowling for Columbine - Questioned the necessity for people to possess assault weapons and the gun/violence culture that was en vogue at the time. It was not an "anti-gun" movie. It was a social critique and questioned the reason why people needed something like an AK-47.
Farenheit 9/11 - Questioned the motives for the US invasion of Iraq and most critically attacked the mass media for acting as "cheerleaders" for the invasion and accused them of failing to do their duty to inform the American people and present contrasting opinions.
Sicko - Highlighted the deficiencies of America's privatized healthcare system and contrasted it to those in other countries, not just Cuba. In fact the air apparent around the Cuban piece was the feeling that, hey, even this third world hell hole may have a better system than what we give to a lot of our citizens. The main comparisons were drawn against the Canadian, UK and French systems.
Slacker Uprising - This highlights and discusses the apathy of American voters, particularly those in the 18-29 demographic and attempts to inspire them to get out and participate in the system.
Capitalism: A Love Story - Examined the financial crisis and accused the government and the American people of being complacent in allowing corporations and banks to rob us of our wealth. His appeal is not anti-capitalism, it is again for the American people to reenergize themselves and participate in the democratic process. He sees democracy and capitalism as a ying and yang, where they control and influence each other. In our current situation, he simply points out that we've given the "yang" too much control.
I hate to say it to you, but you and Moore may actually agree on a lot of things, lol.
that's why it's funny when people claim Moore is fighting Capitalism while making a fortune off it. Right there you know that the people criticizing Moore have never seen anything he's done. Granted, I don't think all of his documentaries have been good, from a documentary standpoint, but a few of them were excellent. The way he approached the culture of fear in America in Bowling for Columbine was very interesting. He even explored the goth culture in Germany, contrasted to Marilyn Manson being blamed for Columbine, the violent video game culture in Asia, and the large gun ownership culture in Canada, all against the U.S. culture and why guns seem to be "violent" here but not in some other areas. If anything, he just wants answers as to why we even appear to need gun control, where other western countries seem to handle having guns just fine...
anyways...he's not an icon to me by any means, but people who dismiss him are always amusing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
