Wuts a 1st amendment?

[zoobernut]

Gregorio if you have any sort of reading comprehension whatsoever I was not arguing the opposite of what you were saying so I have no need to go look up the case or site examples, I was calling you out on your faulty logic and generalized all inclusive statements which you did not answer about or explain. Not only that but you made the same mistake again in your reply. If you are going to claim you know what the founding fathers were thinking or what their intention for the 1st and second amendments were then site your evidence. Obviously it is not as clear cut as what you say it is otherwise there would be no questions here.

And as for your first sentence where you say "nobody who's not absolutely brain-dead" is called "poisoning the well" go wiki it.

My point in that post still stands.

[Gregorio]

Gregorio if you have any sort of reading comprehension whatsoever I was not arguing the opposite of what you were saying so I have no need to go look up the case or site examples, I was calling you out on your faulty logic and generalized all inclusive statements which you did not answer about or explain. Not only that but you made the same mistake again in your reply. If you are going to claim you know what the founding fathers were thinking or what their intention for the 1st and second amendments were then site your evidence. Obviously it is not as clear cut as what you say it is otherwise there would be no questions here.

And as for your first sentence where you say "nobody who's not absolutely brain-dead" is called "poisoning the well" go wiki it.

My point in that post still stands.

How are you not arguing the opposite of what I was saying?? You said "There is a chance that the court rulled that the second amendment is about an individuals rights to own a gun and behind the scenes their motivation to rule that way was interstate commerce", when there is CLEARLY no chance of that if you had bothered to read the case.

Which "generalized all inclusive statements" did I make? Aside from the ONE TIME I said "nobody", there are no all inclusive statements in my post. I don't know what you want me to explain exactly.

My sentence stands as I said. If me saying "nobody who's not braindead" is poisoning the well, then so is your first sentence "There is so much wrong with what you posted here I do not know where to begin." You start off insulting me before you even attempted to make a point.

You say I'm going "to claim I know what they were thinking" like I'm trying to bullshit you. THEY WROTE THEIR THOUGHTS DOWN. It's not that hard to understand. Read the Federalist Papers. Hell, even bust out your old 10th grade history book. As for citing evidence of the quotes, I got most of them from a book called "Origins of the Bill of Rights" by Lenard W. Levy. If you want to find out if the others are real, take your own advice and wiki them. But from your last few points it looks as if your motivation to actually go out and read/research isn't there, so I'm not expecting much.

[zoobernut]

I did not insult you saying you were stupid. I stated that what you posted was wrong. There is a difference between calling someone stupid and calling what they said stupid. One leaves room for the person to continue the argument while the other leaves no room for them to say anything else. What you said is poisoning the well because you attacked the character and intelligence of the person while what I said had nothing to do with you as a person but rather the statement.

Again I was not arguing the opposite of what you were saying if I was I would have said something along the lines of "The Court definitely ruled that way only because they had ulterior motives." but what I actually said was there is a CHANCE they ruled that way because of unseen circumstances. My point in saying that was only to move away from absolute statements which you provided no evidence for because there is still room for other possibilities. That does not mean that you are wrong rather just that there are still other equally valid points.

I will go and look up that information on the wiki, and look for the book "origins of the Bill of Rights" but there are a lot of sources and books out there that claim they know what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the bill of rights and these sources claim they are writing historical fact yet there are conflicting books on the same subjects.

You are taking what I say way to personally as though I am attacking you as a person, I was not saying you were bullshitting me. If it was really as easy as you say it is and the true intention of the bill of rights was written down somewhere in completely easy to understand language and it was not vague in any way then again I do not think we would be having this conversation and there would not be so much controversy over the bill of rights. People do not just argue that the bill of rights does not apply today as they did when they were written they also argue over the original meaning behind them. I just do not see how it can be as clear cut as you say it is.

[Gregorio]

I did not insult you saying you were stupid. I stated that what you posted was wrong. There is a difference between calling someone stupid and calling what they said stupid. One leaves room for the person to continue the argument while the other leaves no room for them to say anything else. What you said is poisoning the well because you attacked the character and intelligence of the person while what I said had nothing to do with you as a person but rather the statement.

If you want to get into technicalities I didn't call you stupid or braindead either. I said people who are of the opinion that the 1st/4th amendments are not individual rights are brain dead, and since you never actually said you think that way, my comment did not directly target you. And actually you said my "blanket statements" (which I'm still looking for, by the way) were stupid, but this is getting away from the point.

Again I was not arguing the opposite of what you were saying if I was I would have said something along the lines of "The Court definitely ruled that way only because they had ulterior motives." but what I actually said was there is a CHANCE they ruled that way because of unseen circumstances. My point in saying that was only to move away from absolute statements which you provided no evidence for because there is still room for other possibilities. That does not mean that you are wrong rather just that there are still other equally valid points.

Okay sure there's a chance they ruled that way because of "unforseen circumstances", but there's also a chance that the judges were abducted by aliens and brainwashed. There is no reasonable chance that there were unforseen things involved, especially since the specific reasons behind decisions are outlined afterwords. You can't just make up BS when affirming a court decision, in every affermation and dissent there's hundreds of other cases researched and cited. You can provide no evidence whatsoever aside from a vague conspiracy, whereas the case provides multiple judges actual words. There are other points but I wouldn't exactly call them valid. I'm speaking in absolutes because it is as close to an absolute as possible.

I will go and look up that information on the wiki, and look for the book "origins of the Bill of Rights" but there are a lot of sources and books out there that claim they know what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the bill of rights and these sources claim they are writing historical fact yet there are conflicting books on the same subjects.

If you have evidence to support a conflicting view (as in Jefferson/Adams/Madison/other state consitutions) saying that only militias should be allowed to have guns I'd love to see it. I don't understand how you can dismiss everything I've said because you doubt the credibility of a Pulitzer Prize winning author (Levy).

You are taking what I say way to personally as though I am attacking you as a person, I was not saying you were bullshitting me. If it was really as easy as you say it is and the true intention of the bill of rights was written down somewhere in completely easy to understand language and it was not vague in any way then again I do not think we would be having this conversation and there would not be so much controversy over the bill of rights. People do not just argue that the bill of rights does not apply today as they did when they were written they also argue over the original meaning behind them. I just do not see how it can be as clear cut as you say it is.

I'm not saying my opinions on the 2nd amendment are 100% correct to other peoples standards. What I am 100% certain of is the things I've been trying to explain to you. The Parker v. Columbia is 100% about individual gun ownership rights, nothing else. Many of the founding fathers were gun owners and in fact did strive for a right to bear arms that existed long before the USA even existed.

[Demosthenes11]

quite possibly the most epic ownage on these forums in the last few months

[Beckwin]

I'm talking about going through the proper channels to change the consitution, instead of straight up ignoring it. Proposing legislation and/or constitutional ammendment to restrict firearms/speech/whatever vs. arresting people unjustly. One ideology seems to favor the latter.

I'll read up on Parker v. Columbia. Either way, I favor activism/living document philosophy because this isn't 1787 nor has it been anything like it for a loooong time.

Oh, and anyone who values the second ammendment over the first and fourth needs a head check.

It's funny you said you want to go through the proper channels to change the constitution, then say that you favor activism. Judicial activism is not supposed to be the proper channel. They're total opposites.

Where did I say the 2nd amendment is more important than the first and fourth? I could have sworn I said they are all important and value preserving all my rights instead of just the ones you think I should have.

And again, I think everyone is aware it's not 1787 any more, but to take your idea to another amendment...police officers could prevent tons more crime if not for the 4th amendment. People die every day because cops can't go into your house when they want to make sure you aren't doing bad stuff. Get with the times, lives are being lost so you can watch porn in private!

Lastly, amendment has 2 Ms, not 3.

Proper channels is electing officials that will seat judges with philosophies you agree with, or in the case of lower courts, voting for them. Proper channels is also changing the law if you see fit. Also, constructionism isn't all it's cracked up to be- "Thus, for example, Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's injunction that "Congress shall make no law," should be construed strictly: the term "no law," Black thought, admitted virtually no exceptions."

I never said that you said the second was more important that the first. That was a general comment I threw on the end of my post.

Police officers could also commit more crimes by having warrant-free access to the homes of citizens.

You seem to think of the law as absolute and immoveable. I disagree. Yes, the 2nd amendment is current law, but it's one I disagree with and see as restrictable in its current form. What are Arms? We obviously don't allow RPGs or .50 caliber machine guns to be in the hands of Joe Schmoe. Bear arms? Bear them against what? Why can't some sort of community center serve as an armory that citizens would have access to? Show an ID, check out a weapon, return it when you're done. Or did the founding fathers intend for Americans to be perpetually paranoid and all own military rifles? The constitution is intentionally and obviously vague, which is why I support activism.

[Gregorio]

Proper channels is electing officials that will seat judges with philosophies you agree with, or in the case of lower courts, voting for them. Proper channels is also changing the law if you see fit. Also, constructionism isn't all it's cracked up to be- "Thus, for example, Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's injunction that "Congress shall make no law," should be construed strictly: the term "no law," Black thought, admitted virtually no exceptions."

I never said that you said the second was more important that the first. That was a general comment I threw on the end of my post.

Police officers could also commit more crimes by having warrant-free access to the homes of citizens.

You seem to think of the law as absolute and immoveable. I disagree. Yes, the 2nd amendment is current law, but it's one I disagree with and see as restrictable in its current form. What are Arms? We obviously don't allow RPGs or .50 caliber machine guns to be in the hands of Joe Schmoe. Bear arms? Bear them against what? Why can't some sort of community center serve as an armory that citizens would have access to? Show an ID, check out a weapon, return it when you're done. Or did the founding fathers intend for Americans to be perpetually paranoid and all own military rifles? The constitution is intentionally and obviously vague, which is why I support activism.

Judge-made law is not a proper channel at all, that's why they call it activism. The proper channel is the path through the house, senate, and president...the one that is outlined in the Constitution.

And while in my theoretical example where the 4th amendment is taken away, sure police could abuse the law...but the vast majority of police officers are honest cops. There are dishonest cops around now, but that doesn't mean we should just get rid of the police. Eliminating the 4th amendment could save thousands of lives, just as eliminating the 2nd may as well.

And no I don't think the law is absolute and immovable, but I do think my natural, fundamental rights are. My right to own a gun does not harm anyone else, just as my right to not have my privacy violated doesn't harm anyone else. Trouble happens when people use these rights to harm other people. However, instead of dealing with the actual violation it seems you'd rather deal with the means of achieving the violation.

As to what count as arms...well I couldn't tell you honestly where to draw the line, but as it works now there are restrictions on this right just as there are restrictions on every other one. And as to whom or what to bear arms against, the should be used to protect ourselves from all enemies. Self-defense (as many of the founding fathers wrote about), external threats from other countries, or even our own government if it becomes corrupt. Keep in mind the founding fathers just escaped from an oppressive rule, and I wouldn't doubt for a second that they saw the possibility of a government growing too powerful once again, and the 2nd amendment provides us with a means to keep government in check.

[Beckwin]

What's so natural and fundamental about owning a gun, compared to free speech and privacy? Driving a vehical isn't even a right, yet it's much more integral to modern living than owning a gun, let's not kid ourselves.

[aurik]

Actually you can drive a vehicle as much as you want without any sort of restrictions. However, the use of public roads is restricted to people who have been licensed.

[Heian]

If I could have a genie, one of my wishes would be that all of the founding fathers, and all those involved in the revolution could see the sorry fuckign state thier county is in. So not only could they weep about it but then fix it.

[archibaldcrane]

More fuel to the "Wuts appropriate college classroom discussion" fire:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070423/ap_ ... ssor_fired

BOSTON - An adjunct professor was fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said "pow."

The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.

During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.

He said administrators had asked the faculty to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.

Although, it was in Boston, which we all know is the city of phail.