Guns and books?

[ErikViking]

I have heard for quite a long time now, something I don't know if it is an urban legend or just exageratations. I would like to know, so I'll ask.

It goes something like this:

In US there is a law/proposal(?) in order to make ownership of weapons anonymous. There should be no records of who own what gun. This is neccessary to ensure personal freedom and integrity.

Also

In US there is a law/proposal(?) in order too make records of what books a person has borrowed from a library. This information is to be handeled out to government when asked for.

So, is this true? IF so, is it the same people supporting both case one and two? Can you like both of those laws or proposals? Is there anoyone here, I'd like to know the reasoning!

I didn't know exactly where to put this, feel free to move!

 

[5stringJeff]

There is no central registry of gun purchases in America or any state. Such a registry would be the first step in gun confiscation, and is strongly opposed by most American gun owners.

 

[Merlin]

There is no central registry of gun purchases in America or any state. Such a registry would be the first step in gun confiscation, and is strongly opposed by most American gun owners.

I don't know of any state without a gun registry if it is bought from a dealer. If you buy a new gun, it will be traceable to the original buyer until the end of time.

 

[ErikViking]

Okay. No central registration but on a state-level purchases are registered.

How about books? Just a myth?

2 replies and the complexity of US government/state already shows, do you know this sometimes make newsreporting from US contradictory and confusing abroad?

 

[Merlin]

Okay. No central registration but on a state-level purchases are registered.

How about books? Just a myth?

2 replies and the complexity of US government/state already shows, do you know this sometimes make newsreporting from US contradictory and confusing abroad?

As for the library books, it seems sometimes like thats all that has been in the news for the last couple of years. Congress is still fighting it because of the FBI has been going to libraries and getting records of who checked out what book without a court order. I think they agreed last week to go back to having to get court orders before a library has to turn over any records.

 

[ErikViking]

Intresting, thanks.

This debate you talk about has gone almost unheard of. It seems very unamerican to register personal stuff about people for government usage.

It is talk about it here too. Government like to store information in case the need arises later. Just for my saftey of course. But people in general don't like that idea.

The "pro" argument is "If you have nothing to hide, - why worry?"

The "against" is "You don't know who is going to use this information, not when and not why"

 

[padisha emperor]

About the guns :

The 2nd amendement of the US Constitution allows the people to have guns. But the text says that this right wouldn't be trangressed because it is NECESSARY for the country and its security to have a well-organized milice with weapons.
Maybe in 1789, date of this text, and in 1791, date of its vote, but not at all nowadays... Today, Army, CIA, NSA, FBI, police forces assure the security. Not milicians with rifles. We are no more at the end of the XVIIIth century, when the minute men were necessary for the young american nation.

The right given by the 2nd amendement is conditional : IF it is necessary for the State's security, then people have the right to own guns. But, a contrario, if it is no more necessary, this right become useless, without object.

Maybe this amendement should have an evolutive interpretation, with the evolution of the society, and no more an exegetic interpretation. Law is an evolutive domain.

 

[Merlin]

About the guns :

The 2nd amendement of the US Constitution allows the people to have guns. But the text says that this right wouldn't be trangressed because it is NECESSARY for the country and its security to have a well-organized milice with weapons.
Maybe in 1789, date of this text, and in 1791, date of its vote, but not at all nowadays... Today, Army, CIA, NSA, FBI, police forces assure the security. Not milicians with rifles. We are no more at the end of the XVIIIth century, when the minute men were necessary for the young american nation.

The right given by the 2nd amendement is conditional : IF it is necessary for the State's security, then people have the right to own guns. But, a contrario, if it is no more necessary, this right become useless, without object.

Maybe this amendement should have an evolutive interpretation, with the evolution of the society, and no more an exegetic interpretation. Law is an evolutive domain.

If the second amendment is conditional, are the rest of them conditional? The police force can't assume the responsibility of the militia. The militia is made up of civilians as needed by the states and they were originally supposed to supply their own weapons. There is a way to do away with guns and that is to add another amendment stating so and be ratified by two thirds of the 50 states. But me acting as an individual, they can't have mine until after I'm dead. We need guns now more than ever.

 

[pegwinn]

About the guns :

The 2nd amendement of the US Constitution allows the people to have guns. But the text says that this right wouldn't be trangressed because it is NECESSARY for the country and its security to have a well-organized milice with weapons.
Maybe in 1789, date of this text, and in 1791, date of its vote, but not at all nowadays... Today, Army, CIA, NSA, FBI, police forces assure the security. Not milicians with rifles. We are no more at the end of the XVIIIth century, when the minute men were necessary for the young american nation.

The right given by the 2nd amendement is conditional : IF it is necessary for the State's security, then people have the right to own guns. But, a contrario, if it is no more necessary, this right become useless, without object.

Maybe this amendement should have an evolutive interpretation, with the evolution of the society, and no more an exegetic interpretation. Law is an evolutive domain.

For a moment I thought you were serious and I was going to wear my lil fingers down to a nubbin with a typo drubbin. Then I spotted the wink at the end.

 

[padisha emperor]

I was serious.

For me, this constitutionnal text is really conditionnal, I don't think that militia is usefull, that the national security of USA needs it.

Maybe you can't understand me and I can't understand you because of the difference of culture : in Europe, people don't have so many weapons. For us, the proloferation of weapons is a factor of danger and insecurity. For you, it seems to be a security factor.
So, sure, the mutual comprehension will be quite hard

 

[LOki]

About the guns :

The 2nd amendement of the US Constitution allows the people to have guns.

Nope.

But the text says that this right wouldn't be trangressed because it is NECESSARY for the country and its security to have a well-organized milice with weapons.

Nope.

Maybe in 1789, date of this text, and in 1791, date of its vote, but not at all nowadays... Today, Army, CIA, NSA, FBI, police forces assure the security.

...or not.

Not milicians with rifles.

Do you mean musicians?

The right given by the 2nd amendement is conditional :

Nope.

IF it is necessary for the State's security, then people have the right to own guns.

State security is irrellevent to the right.

But, a contrario, if it is no more necessary, this right become useless, without object.

Nope. I've punked this argument of yours before.

Maybe this amendement should have an evolutive interpretation, with the evolution of the society, and no more an exegetic interpretation. Law is an evolutive domain.

Still not relevent to rights.

 

[padisha emperor]

It doens't expressly allow to own guns, but it's the same result : the right to have and own weapons won't be infringed by the public authorities... Same result.

and :

"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."

it means : BECAUSE a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, THEN the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

If the 1st part of the 2nd amendement's sentence is no more pertinent or valid, then the second part can be cancelled.

 

[LOki]

It doens't expressly allow to own guns, but it's the same result : the right to have and own weapons won't be infringed by the public authorities... Same result.

"Allow" doesn't come into it--you're wrong.

and :

"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."

it means : BECAUSE a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, THEN the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

If the 1st part of the 2nd amendement's sentence is no more pertinent or valid, then the second part can be cancelled.

You were wrong when I punked this argument of yours before, and you're still wrong now.

 

[pegwinn]

I was serious. I doubt that.

For me, this constitutionnal text is really conditionnal, I don't think that militia is usefull, that the national security of USA needs it. Fortunitly for us, your opinion won't carry in a court.

Maybe you can't understand me and I can't understand you because of the difference of culture : in Europe, people don't have so many weapons. For us, the proloferation of weapons is a factor of danger and insecurity. For you, it seems to be a security factor.
So, sure, the mutual comprehension will be quite hard Your basic Euro is spoon fed from cradle to grave and cannot comprehend the freedoms that are here in America.

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.

 

[padisha emperor]

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 ?

NO.

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

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.

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

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.

PE, we are on our 1st and only Constitution, with 27 amendments. While we 'interpret' to adjust to the time, the essence remains the same.

Now how many constitutions has France had over the past 200 years or so?

 

[padisha emperor]

PE, we are on our 1st and only Constitution, with 27 amendments. While we 'interpret' to adjust to the time, the essence remains the same.

Now how many constitutions has France had over the past 200 years or so?

France had about 16 Constitutions. But also several different political regimes : France knew :

Monarchy (496-1791)

Constitutionnal Monarchy (1791-1792)

Republic (1792-1793*****), then Terror (1793-1794, during Terror, the constitution was not in application, sad because it was one of the best constitution ever written), so new Constitution in 1795

Directoire (1795-1799)

Consulate (1799-1804)

Empire (1804-1814)

Monarchy (1814-1815)

Empire ("100 days", 1815)

Monarchy again (1815-1830), revolution of 1830 and new constitution

Monarchy ("July Monarchy, 1830-1848)

Republic (IInd, 1848-1852)

Empire (the IInd, 1852-1870)

Republic (the IIIrd, 1870-1940)

Vichy(1940-1944)

Provisional Government (1944-1946)

Repulic (the IVth, 1946-1958)

and finally, the Vth Republic (since 1958)

**** with a juridical point of view, the Ist Republic is going from 1792 to 1815 : The terror government, the Directoire, the Consulate, are regimes of it, and even the Ist Empire : "the governement of the Republic is given to the hands of an Emperor").


France's history, since the Revolution, is very agitated. If France knew so many constitution is was because lots of revolution appealed to change the regime, or at least the constitution.
France tried also a lot of kind of regime, and these attempts were not useless, because finally, France finnd its good way. And all the Constitutions gave something, gave a "plus".

So, it was not a question of stability of the fundamental text. The french constitutionnal unstability is the consequence of the POLITICAL unstability.
But when all is good, like the USA, France makes some modifications to its constitution, you add amendements, we add or cancel articles or we rewrite articles, to adpat the text. The actual constitution (1958) knew several revisions, but we keep it.

And as I say in an other thread (global discussions), the jurisprudence of the Constituionnal Council built a very good architecture for the Constitutional texts.

So, i only mentionned the point that the amendement of 1789 and 1791, like the 2nd, seem to have NOW and exegetic INTERPRETATION.
That's why I make the comparison with the Declaration of 1789 : same period, same years, but the interpretation is evolutive. And i was wondering about the relevance of the 2 amendement nowadays, after a confrontation between the original text and the actual situation of the society.

 

[Annie]

Yep PE, I know. That was my point. We see things very differently. You have nearly as many Constitutions as we have amendments, (Don't forget, the first 10 came immediately upon ratification.)

 

[padisha emperor]

Yep PE, I know. That was my point. We see things very differently. You have nearly as many Constitutions as we have amendments, (Don't forget, the first 10 came immediately upon ratification.)

I know it, I have the US Constitution with all the amendement in my bag, with some other juridical important texts

 

[Emmett]

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.

Not true!

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.

Not True again!

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.

Hence, we have had amendments!