Guns and books?

[pegwinn]

Actually the text of the second amendment requires that states maintain a militia and details who is to man it. Look at the historical context and you will understand.

I know the historical context of the vote of this text. Don't you think it has changed ? Are you still in 1789-1791 ? are you independant only since a few years ? Nope.

NO.

Constitution is not an untouchable text. It can be interpretated with an evolutive look. Not necessary an exegetic. Nope, it is to be interpreted as literally as possible using the context of the time it was written..

Look : in France, an old law, from the Revolution, forbide the women to wear pants. This law was voted during the 1790's period. Never abrogated, because people forget it, in fact.
So, with your point of view, and to respect the historical context, this law, never abrogated, so, always here, should have to been executed, and then, french women would ne more be able to wear pants.
of course, it is not the situation, because society changes, and law is probably the domain where the evolution of society is the most important.
With an exegetic interpretation, the french law I mentionned would be still here, but forunatly, the evolutive interpretation does that this law is automaticly cancelled.

Your constitution was written in 1787. Things have changed this 1787. So, you can give a different interpretation of the Constitution. Nope, anyone who believes the constitution is a living document is reality challenged. IF something has changed so drastically that the original text is outdated, one must submit for amendment. The fact that various judges cannot grasp that isn't my problem at all..

The Human's and Citizen's Rights Declaration of 1789 claimed lots of fundamental rights. But the french constitutionnal council said, during the 70's, that these rights HAVE TO be read and understand with an actual point of view, to adapt them to the actual and modern society. So, some rights can be a little different from the original conception of 1789, but it's better, because there is an evolution, in the good way. That may hold true in France. But here in the USA the amendment process is what is intended to address necessary changes..

You have an interesting viewpoint. But I cannot agree with it because it would render the text of the constitution pointless. The evolution/interpretation folks simply don't realize that by not holding to the text, the document itself is in danger of becoming irrelevant. Take the ninth amendment. According to it, I have the right to smoke pot while consorting with animals. Or do I?

 

[Annie]

You have an interesting viewpoint. But I cannot agree with it because it would render the text of the constitution pointless. The evolution/interpretation folks simply don't realize that by not holding to the text, the document itself is in danger of becoming irrelevant. Take the ninth amendment. According to it, I have the right to smoke pot while consorting with animals. Or do I?

Pegg, a picture I don't want to envision! O my eyes!!!

 

[Emmett]

You have an interesting viewpoint. But I cannot agree with it because it would render the text of the constitution pointless. The evolution/interpretation folks simply don't realize that by not holding to the text, the document itself is in danger of becoming irrelevant. Take the ninth amendment. According to it, I have the right to smoke pot while consorting with animals. Or do I?

Pegg, personally I thinnk you should be able to smoke all the pot with the little animals as you want to. I would suggest however that YOU roll as their little claws will tear the paper. Maybe you could convince them to go in on a bong!

 

[padisha emperor]

Nope, it is to be interpreted as literally as possible using the context of the time it was written..

You have an interesting viewpoint. But I cannot agree with it because it would render the text of the constitution pointless. The evolution/interpretation folks simply don't realize that by not holding to the text, the document itself is in danger of becoming irrelevant. Take the ninth amendment. According to it, I have the right to smoke pot while consorting with animals. Or do I?

you have your point of view and I respect it and understand it too. But say that a constitution cannot be interpreted with an evolutive way is not correct. Exegetic and evolutive interpretations are both corrects, the two can be done.
So, it can be. You disagree with it, this is your right (no amendment forbides it, I guess ).

Other point : can you tell me why a militia is still necessary to assure the security of the State ? If it is still necessary, then it would be a specificity of the USA. In Europe, and of course in France, we had militia, but no more yet, it's been a long time that european States don't need such forces. Army, police, secret services and all the State's organization assure the security. So, here is my question : why do you think that militia is still uesfull and necessary, and why the single USA do it ?

Thanks

 

[Annie]

you have your point of view and I respect it and understand it too. But say that a constitution cannot be interpreted with an evolutive way is not correct. Exegetic and evolutive interpretations are both corrects, the two can be done.
So, it can be. You disagree with it, this is your right (no amendment forbides it, I guess ).

No PE, not in US. Read dear Tocqueville, we do see our Constitution and rights very, very differently. Just the idea that you may be correct about the right of housing, put forth on another thread I believe, illustrates just how differently.

Other point : can you tell me why a militia is still necessary to assure the security of the State ? If it is still necessary, then it would be a specificity of the USA. In Europe, and of course in France, we had militia, but no more yet, it's been a long time that european States don't need such forces. Army, police, secret services and all the State's organization assure the security. So, here is my question : why do you think that militia is still uesfull and necessary, and why the single USA do it ? Thanks

The threat from government corruption has not lessened, could be argued that the strengthening of the central government makes the reality of armed citizenry a better idea than ever. Then there is the possibility of some insurgency from within. Trust me, if there were kids on our streets, burning cars, it wouldn't keep happening.

 

[padisha emperor]

No PE, not in US. Read dear Tocqueville, we do see our Constitution and rights very, very differently. Just the idea that you may be correct about the right of housing, put forth on another thread I believe, illustrates just how differently. The threat from government corruption has not lessened, could be argued that the strengthening of the central government makes the reality of armed citizenry a better idea than ever. Then there is the possibility of some insurgency from within. Trust me, if there were kids on our streets, burning cars, it wouldn't keep happening.

i don't deny the differences of ideas between our two countries, that's why i asked Pegwinn, to have an explanation. you begin to give it to me, so thank you.

For the burning cars, in France a militia with weapon wouldn't probably work. It would be chaos and like civil wars, everybody shooting on people... No, this is the job of police first of all. Some citizens of the concerned suburbs did organize kind of militia during the events of november 2005, but without weapons and without using force : they were only here, to make some dissuasion. it works quite well, discussion and dialog with the youthes often resolve the problem. I think you know that, because of your job .

Have a good night Kathianne, I'm going to bed.

 

[Annie]

i don't deny the differences of ideas between our two countries, that's why i asked Pegwinn, to have an explanation. you begin to give it to me, so thank you.

For the burning cars, in France a militia with weapon wouldn't probably work. It would be chaos and like civil wars, everybody shooting on people... No, this is the job of police first of all. Some citizens of the concerned suburbs did organize kind of militia during the events of november 2005, but without weapons and without using force : they were only here, to make some dissuasion. it works quite well, discussion and dialog with the youthes often resolve the problem. I think you know that, because of your job .

Have a good night Kathianne, I'm going to bed.

G'night PE.

 

[Emmett]

PE is a treasure huh?

 

[pegwinn]

you have your point of view and I respect it and understand it too. But say that a constitution cannot be interpreted with an evolutive way is not correct. Exegetic and evolutive interpretations are both corrects, the two can be done.
So, it can be. You disagree with it, this is your right (no amendment forbides it, I guess

To the best of my limited knowledge, no constitution except the one in the USA specifies exactly how to change it. The incorporation of that instruction clearly points to two things.

First: The authors understood that the document would not be eternal and built in a method to keep it current.

Second: By incorporating a specified method to change the constitution, logically it follows that they expected one to read it as written. If the reading didn't measure up to reality, then change was mandated.

Other point : can you tell me why a militia is still necessary to assure the security of the State ? If it is still necessary, then it would be a specificity of the USA. In Europe, and of course in France, we had militia, but no more yet, it's been a long time that european States don't need such forces. Army, police, secret services and all the State's organization assure the security. So, here is my question : why do you think that militia is still uesfull and necessary, and why the single USA do it ?

Thanks

The presence of an armed citizenry ensures that a coup is far less likely to succeed. Remember that in 1790 the average person had access to the advanced weaponry of the day. You could literally forge a cannon in the barn. Today, I am not allowed to get a Claymore or even build one. So because of technology, a citizen force of insurgents against a coup would have to outnumber them by dozens to one.

Also, unlike Europe, each State is supposed to be sovereign. That was disproved during our civil war of course. But the concept is still there. Rioting in the streets and simple civil disturbance is actually the responsibility of the State vice Federal authorities. Which is why Louisiana is required to ask for federal assistance during Katrina.

Finally, a militia is the last line of defense against armed incursion. Had the French employed the system, the German occupation would have been far less successful.

Finally, finally: Discussion and diplomacy are wonderful concepts philosophically speaking. But there comes a time when talking fails and Direct Action is needed. As Kathi said about the burning of cars....... Come try that in my neighborhood.

 

[LOki]

But say that a constitution cannot be interpreted with an evolutive way is not correct. Exegetic and evolutive interpretations are both corrects, the two can be done.

As pegwinn explained above, interpretation of the US Constitution is not evolutive--the evolutive component is executed by the amendment process.

Nor is it's interpretation exegetive--the exegetic clauses within the US Constitution do not place limits upon the rights it protects, only the powers it grants.

Other point : can you tell me why a militia is still necessary to assure the security of the State ?

These are 7 reasons, previously submitted, why a militia is still necessary to assure the security of a FREE State:

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Militias do not necessarily assure the security of a state; fascist and socialist states are most certainly threatened by the existence of militias--consiser the consequences to the states above if those 56 million people were armed against their extermination.

If it is still necessary, then it would be a specificity of the USA. In Europe, and of course in France, we had militia, but no more yet, it's been a long time that european States don't need such forces.

The point is having a free state.

In Europe, and of course France, the notion of liberty being desireable and necessary has been abandoned for a long time.

Army, police, secret services and all the State's organization assure the security.

...or they serve to passify and subdue the the governed.

So, here is my question : why do you think that militia is still uesfull and necessary, and why the single USA do it ?

Because the militia is not required to be an appurtenance of the government, unlike "army, police, secret services and all the State's organization." The "army, police, secret services and all the State's organization" do not neccessarily serve the interests of the people, and the people have a right to defend themselves, when appropriately neccessary, from their government.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Your constitution was written in 1787. Things have changed this 1787. So, you can give a different interpretation of the Constitution.

There is a clearly defined way to change our constitution, through the amendment process. "The constitution is a living document" is a euphemism for "we can't get the votes to actually change the supreme law of the land, so we'll just pretend it says something it doesn't, or says the precise opposite of what was meant."

This sets a dangerous precedent. If we can creatively "interpret" the 2nd amendment to mean nothing, then we can just as easily interpret the 1st amendment to mean nothing. "Let's ban assault rifles because no one could have foreseen them 200 years ago" is not really any different than "let's ban internet, radio, and telephone speech, because no one could have forseen them 200 years ago".

Other point : can you tell me why a militia is still necessary to assure the security of the State ? If it is still necessary, then it would be a specificity of the USA. In Europe, and of course in France, we had militia, but no more yet, it's been a long time that european States don't need such forces. Army, police, secret services and all the State's organization assure the security. So, here is my question : why do you think that militia is still uesfull and necessary, and why the single USA do it ?

Thanks

Well for starters, europe has a much bloodier and tyrannical history than the US, so I'm not sure I would hold it up as an example of how swell gun control is. Secondly, you can point to countries with strict gun control laws as having a low murder rate, but they had a low murder rate even before they had gun laws. Britain is an example of this. Then you've got the example of Switzerland, probably the most peaceful and prosperous nation in europe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is legal to own assault rifles, and their reserves keep their weapons at home.

 

[Merlin]

I know the historical context of the vote of this text. Don't you think it has changed ? Are you still in 1789-1791 ? are you independant only since a few years ?

NO.

Constitution is not an untouchable text. It can be interpretated with an evolutive look. Not necessary an exegetic.

Our Constitution is "Absolutely an untouchable text" as you call it. Its the glue that holds us together and just one of the millions of reasons we have the greatest nation on earth.

 

[padisha emperor]

Well for starters, europe has a much bloodier and tyrannical history than the US, so I'm not sure I would hold it up as an example of how swell gun control is. Secondly, you can point to countries with strict gun control laws as having a low murder rate, but they had a low murder rate even before they had gun laws. Britain is an example of this. Then you've got the example of Switzerland, probably the most peaceful and prosperous nation in europe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is legal to own assault rifles, and their reserves keep their weapons at home.

Switzerland's policy is neutrality since centuries. But they have a militia, like the old US minute men. It's how their defense system is organized (they have also of course an army).

But Switzerland is not a really good example, it's quite different from the rest of Europe, for a lot of points

 

[LOki]

Switzerland's policy is neutrality since centuries. But they have a militia, like the old US minute men. It's how their defense system is organized (they have also of course an army).

But Switzerland is not a really good example, it's quite different from the rest of Europe, for a lot of points

I don't know anything about Switzerland's constitution, but if "rights" in Switzerland are contingent upon the validity and existence of the militia then you are right--Switzerland is not an appropriate example of comparison to the US, where rights are contingent upon the validity and exstence of the individual; where rights are not granted by, or enumerated in, but rather, protected by the US constution, and the powers that constitution grants to the US government.