Nebraska

[DaveK]

The quotes are eloquent, but to me, dated. The basic premises may be inspiring, but needs change over time, IMO, along with the interpretation of ideas originating in times of different needs.

I am very sorry that you feel this way, especially when it concerns the writings and opinions of some of the most influential and brilliant founders of this country. Richard Henry Lee, as I am sure you recall from your history classes, was an American statesman from Virginia best known for the motion in the Second Continental Congress calling for the Colonies' independence from Great Britain. His famous resolution of June 1776 led to the United States Declaration of Independence, which Lee signed. Hardly a lightweight when it came to political thinking. James Madison, as you may also recall, served as our fourth President and was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Considered to be the "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution.

The greatest jurists in our history have consulted the writings of these men, including the supreme court. They still do today. Our needs may change but the timeless wisdom and principles of our constitution never do. Our constitution was never meant to be an instrument that bends in the wind of the latest opinion poll. It has survived over 200 years as the most brilliant form of government ever devised.

Those who believe that the Constitution is dated and should be changed are the very same people who believe in the curtailment and extinguishment of the right to keep and bear arms. It is impossible to claim that you believe in the right to keep and bear arms and then assert that the writings of the men who founded this country are dated and irrelevant.

And, yes, I cant let go of the "statist" label. While the truth may be difficult, if it is appropriate to the discussion, it must be said. The statist believes in giving a centralized government control over economic and social planning, the complete antithesis of our constitution. The statist is driven by an insatiable appetite for control and that means controlling just about everything that you do, from how many guns you can own to what types you are allowed to own, if any.

If I am truly to have the last word, then I feel compelled to return us to what gave rise to this discussion in the first place when I stated:

We have been duped into believing that laws are the secret to eliminating our problems. If this were true, the REALITY is that there would be no crime. For how many hundreds of years has it been illegal to murder, to steal, to rape, to cheat others, to kidnap, to commit crimes with guns, knives.......... REALITY = the bad guys don't obey the law.

The fatal flaw in this foolishness is the belief that bad guys will be deterred from their evil ways if we just pass another law. We have been tricked into accepting the premise that by passing more laws, we have real solutions. We praise our lawmakers for the annual addition of 1000's of new rules, regulations, guidelines and laws, but the REALITY is that crime still rages on. The enormous waste of time with all of the ridiculous guns laws in California will never stop the bad guys from carrying out their evil deeds. REPEAT - bad guys don't obey the law and that means that anyone that wants a gun can find one (illegally) and there are no background checks, no fingerprints, and no waiting periods.

The end.

[cruiserlarry]

The greatest jurists in our history have consulted the writings of these men, including the supreme court. They still do today. Our needs may change but the timeless wisdom and principles of our constitution never do. Our constitution was never meant to be an instrument that bends in the wind of the latest opinion poll. It has survived over 200 years as the most brilliant form of government ever devised.

Those who believe that the Constitution is dated and should be changed are the very same people who believe in the curtailment and extinguishment of the right to keep and bear arms. It is impossible to claim that you believe in the right to keep and bear arms and then assert that the writings of the men who founded this country are dated and irrelevant.

You just couldn't let go...While that may be true for a few who bear arms, it is not true in application. This is a inaccurate statement, on many fronts. Women's rights ? Minority vote ? are these the affective changes wrought by gun control folks ? I'd think there were many changes made that we can both agree with. Gun-control advocates are suggesting to modify the law, not rewrite the constitution. Nowhere has anyone here asked to change the constitution (although suggestions might be based on a different interpretation of the constitution than you have) - and as an attorney, you are certainly aware the main reason for the supreme court is to interpret and apply the meaning of the constitution; not necessarily the actual verbage written. While the words are fixed, the the constitution has been a dynamic document since it's original writing: many amendments, changes, and judicial interpretations have occurred over time.

And you don't have to be a statist to be interested in the safety and welfare of people in general, despite you suggestion to the contrary. I'm certainly not interested in controlling every aspect of your life, or anyone else's. But I do feel the need to defend the safety of myself and my family from concerns that may be different than yours. This does not make me a statist any more than anyone who makes use of state run services that currently exist for the benefit (in theory) of all citizens.

The statist is driven by an insatiable appetite for control and that means controlling just about everything that you do, from how many guns you can own to what types you are allowed to own, if any.

Sounds like a gun control extremist, but not a statist; gun control was the only topic under consideration here, so to put such a broad label over an opposing view to undermine it's point is not productive to a healthy debate, IMO.

If I am truly to have the last word, then I feel compelled to return us to what gave rise to this discussion in the first place when I stated:

We have been duped into believing that laws are the secret to eliminating our problems.

Well, I said you could have the last word, but you chose a repetition of past statements. I was hoping for something less likely to reignite my frustration, but alas...

I'm not sure where this conspiracy theory originates; Or who you feel has been duped - those with views different than yours ? Welcome to democracy. Certainly not with the founding fathers of our country who created a document left open to interpretation and adaptation for over 200 years. I would suggest that the interpretation of the second amendment by the gun lobby has duped many into believing an extreme view of a right originally intended, by many who've studied it, to be different than it's application today (as is the case with many of the constitutional amendments - which helps to keep legal scholars and judges employed).

Your statements belie an attitude of "my way or the highway"; certainly not in the spirit in which the negotiations the preceded the final draft of the constitution took place; unfortunate, as things are bound to change with time regardless of your stance; and unproductive, as the problems, as seen by both sides of this argument, still exist.

I was hoping for a more constructive final thought from someone, whom despite our far differing viewpoint on this topic, I do greatly respect.

[DaveK]

I am done with this discussion as it stands, because only 2 views are being endlessly repeated by persons who hold firmly to their beliefs - so you get the last word.

This post sent me to the dictionary. I thought I knew what the phrases, "done with it" and "you get the last word", meant, but obviously I was wrong. So with my work completed with the lexicologist, I shall respond. First things first, however. The pizza beckons. I shall return.

[Chazz Layne]

Despite the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I feel compelled to point out that the only reason the gun control nuts aren't trying to rewrite the Constitution is because they know that goal is still years (optimistic hope) away. For now, they have settled for eroding our freedoms a small (and big) chunk at a time. As soon as they have all their ducks in a row (lol), they will kill the 2A (and shortly after the extreme left will kill the defenseless 1A, 4A, 5A and 10A).

[DaveK]

Larry,

It’s hard enough to keep this thing focused. Women’s rights and minority vote??? Maybe you can start a thread on those subjects later.

Back to the firearms laws discussion. I know that you bristle at my attempts to characterize you as a statist, but such a description is unavoidable, especially when you make statements like this:

While the words are fixed, the the constitution has been a dynamic document since it's original writing: many amendments, changes, and judicial interpretations have occurred over time.

The Constitution is not a dynamic document. Its meaning is fixed as are the principles upon which it was founded. That is why Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, seek the original intent of the founders to be able to interpret the constitution. They do not and should not rely on current thinking or fads, or current morals (or a lack thereof) or opinion polls to interpret the Constitution. James Madison wrote:

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers."

The beauty and genius of the Constitution is that it was based on timeless truths, principles and beliefs. It was also based on the founders unwavering and passionate conviction of the need to protect the individual by limiting government. The attempts to chip away at the constitution are principally by those who believe in more governmental control. Guess who?

There is only one crowd that believes that the Constitution should be flexible and open to change. This crowd believes in legislation from the bench and preaches the need to rely on changing morals and trends in order to govern. By now you should know the group - you guessed it, statists.

A greater understanding of the amendments and the amendment process is necessary before suggesting that they represent a dynamic Constitution. The first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) were a statement of individual rights and a LIMITATION on the powers of the government. The Constitution, in a larger sense, was also meant as a protection of individual rights and a limitation of the powers of government. While it is true that the Constitution has been amended, as provided for in the document itself, it is very difficult to do and in over 220 years, has been amended only 17 times (not counting the Bill of Rights). This difficulty was intentional in order to prevent the very argument that you espouse, that the document is “dynamic”. To accept this “dynamic” theory is to abandon the beliefs, morals, and truths on which the Constitution was based.

I would suggest that the interpretation of the second amendment by the gun lobby has duped many into believing an extreme view of a right originally intended, by many who've studied it, to be different than it's application today (as is the case with many of the constitutional amendments - which helps to keep legal scholars and judges employed).

The Second Amendment was recently interpreted by the US Supreme Court in the case of Heller v DC. Among the many things that the Heller Court did, it relied extensively on the writings of our founders and scholars who knew the original intent of the second amendment. They didn’t take polls, they didn’t consult or consider recent trends and they didn’t believe that the Constitution was a flexible document that changed with the times. As it turned out, the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Second Amendment was precisely the same as the “extreme view” of the “gun lobby” you seem to despise.

Gun-control advocates are suggesting to modify the law, not rewrite the constitution.

If the gun control crowd really does not want to change the Constitution, please explain why so many of them lined up with DC in the Heller case in the hope that the Court would uphold the DC ban on firearms. Before you jump in bed with these groups, you might want to read some of their legal briefs filed in the Heller case. Changing the Constitution is exactly what they desire. Don't be fooled!


I have enjoyed these exchanges. Sadly if there is one thing lacking, in all of the back and forth posts, it is any evidence that more gun laws will serve us better. And that is what this has all been about. Enforce existing laws, prosecute swiftly, and punish the bad guys appropriately. There’s your solution.

[cruiserlarry]

Despite the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I feel compelled to point out that the only reason the gun control nuts aren't trying to rewrite the Constitution is because they know that goal is still years (optimistic hope) away. For now, they have settled for eroding our freedoms a small (and big) chunk at a time. As soon as they have all their ducks in a row (lol), they will kill the 2A (and shortly after the extreme left will kill the defenseless 1A, 4A, 5A and 10A).

This is the paranoid fear-mongering that concerns me - some mad conspiracy theory that "they" want to rid everyone of all their rights... What majority of our current Supreme Court do you suggest would vote to modify 4 amendments ? Who, besides me, even voices an opposing opinion here ?

While I am sure there are extremist anti-gun nuts, the majority of those for gun regulation are not looking to strip everyone of their rights...quite the contrary, most of this same group was trying to waken the general public to the actual erosion of their civil rights as a result of the Patriot Act. This pathetic piece of legislation was brought about by an administration that was extremely pro-gun; They were happy to have the focus kept on a less significant section of the constitution while more general freedoms were curtailed. Check out the actual text of the Patriot Act if you are interested to see how your rights will be taken away a small chunk at a time; not by anything having to do with the pro or anti gun debate, but rather by people in power over those who are put in fear for their safety. I didn't see any armed militia take a stand in Washington to protect the citizens when that bill was enacted. When any part of our government comes to strip you of your rights, no weapons will be required - only an air of fear that causes most to give up freedoms (even while keeping their weapons) willingly in the pursuit of "protection". To me, this is scary, and should be of concern to everyone, regardless of political leaning or social status. Since 9/11, we have allowed the government the ability to tap our phones, read our mail, and search our property, and confine us for questioning without warrant or due cause, in the name of homeland security. I can understand the furor some feel to hang onto their weapons came about after hearing that news. I just wish that same energy could be directed to the restoration of rights we did lose, instead of the ones we might lose....

[cruiserlarry]

Dave -

To clear up my statement, I should have said the interpretation of the constitution has been dynamic, not the actual document. You argument still stands, but we, and many legal minds will still disagree.

Given the extreme difficulty in amending the Constitution, how is the chance of overturning or modifying the 2,4,5,10 amendments even a realistic concern ?

Accepting the idea that the interpretation of the meaning of the constitution can be dynamic does not abandon any ideals, morals or truths - unless you feel you are able to more accurately depict the original intent of those that wrote it (and they disagreed with each other as well) than other legal scholars of differing viewpoints. While you and I may be firm in our resolve, the answers to all constitutional questions are still not set in stone.

I can't continue to rebut statements any further, as I've gone beyond where I wanted to go in this discussion, and lost focus on the actual OAUSA events and issues that are due my immediate attention. Thank you for this volley - I suggest we surrender the court to new players....

[gon2srf]

Dave -

To clear up my statement, I should have said the interpretation of the constitution has been dynamic, not the actual document. You argument still stands, but we, and many legal minds will still disagree.

Given the extreme difficulty in amending the Constitution, how is the chance of overturning or modifying the 2,4,5,10 amendments even a realistic concern ?

Accepting the idea that the interpretation of the meaning of the constitution can be dynamic does not abandon any ideals, morals or truths - unless you feel you are able to more accurately depict the original intent of those that wrote it (and they disagreed with each other as well) than other legal scholars of differing viewpoints. While you and I may be firm in our resolve, the answers to all constitutional questions are still not set in stone.

I can't continue to rebut statements any further, as I've gone beyond where I wanted to go in this discussion, and lost focus on the actual OAUSA events and issues that are due my immediate attention. Thank you for this volley - I suggest we surrender the court to new players....

or continue it at the campfire Friday night!

[cruiserlarry]

or continue it at the campfire Friday night!

Sorry, I can't...

I'll be out target shooting

[DaveK]

or continue it at the campfire Friday night!

Sorry, I can't...

I'll be out target shooting

You mean, WE will be out target shooting.