The Second Amendment

I stated it as a fact, not as an argument, the entire country is based on the rights of the individual.

 

Well, it's not because it is that it should be.
Why do you think individual rights should stand above collective rights?

 

Threatened? To a very small extent. If there is a blatantly obvious do-or die need, yes. But unlike laws, NO part of the government should have any deciding factor except to put it up for the vote. No vetoeing, no loopholes or anything. If they do theyll abuse it for whatever reason. Then we'll be forced to take up arms for the 3rd time in american history and there will be bloodshed. Hate to say it but first week or month that anynone is in a gov't postion, they become corrupted. Money and power can corrupt even the strongest humanitarian on earth. Human greed will never die.

And even then, I am reluctant to have our rights altered or clarified. But If i see a clear, concise, unanimous need, I will move toward that common goal but cautiously and questioning anything that could twist what we're trying to do into an unrecognizable monster. When it comes to anything to do with the very foundations of the american dream/people( and lets face it, the true america died looong ago, only the dream lives on) I would expect that of anyone...

Edit: to answer clearly, yes i believe it should be brought into the focus of the 21 st century. Whilst it is saddening we have lost the ability to learn unspoken rules, we do need to clarify for those too ignorant of said rules.

 

I never said it was.

The question you need to be asking yourself is this: why should the collective rights trump the rights of the individual? Why do you think that the collective should be in a position to impose itself onto the individual?

You can use the European Union as an example here, why should a central point dictate to all the sovereign member countries what they can and cannot do?

This would be on a greater scale of course, but the principle is the same.

 

There are many examples where the rights of a collective can be used to sustainably improve the position of everyone with small infringements on individuals.

If your living next to someone you expect them to not to be too noisy as a simple and (hopefully) uncontroversial example.

The debate should be whether the benefits to everyone of gun control is greater than the disadvantages. Not just your assumption that it lies firmly to the "individuals" side.

 

So, you believe that North Korea and Pakistan have the sovereign right to possess nuclear weapons?

 

The 10th amendment explicitly states this.

 

Indeed it does.

 

Your avoiding the question by again just flatly going with the constitution says..
Could you please given a reasoned repy to my point about were the boundary between individual and collective rights lies.

 

Your avoiding the question by again just flatly going with the constitution says..
Could you please given a reasoned repy to my point about were the boundary between individual and collective rights lies.

 

I responded to eddie dane's comment on the10th amendment, I didn't avoid anything, I just didn't respond to you.

 

So, could it be argued under the 14th Amendment that personal ownership of firearms could affect the interstate market of firearms, therefore introducing the mechanism to regulate personal ownership of guns?

 

Commerce clause has been stretched to the maximum which is why I referred to the Lopez case earlier. What Lopez was doing was already against Texas law but the fed stepped in and use commerce and lost.

 

i notice walle just ignores the questions he doesn't have an answer for.

also, though i'm no expert on the constitution (and i can see walle isn't either), i am acquainted with my country's respect for, and key historical precedents, with regard to the rights of individuals, many of which i hold dear (though my right to control my own body is frequently up for debate).

i don't know if anyone else noticed, but the preamble to the u.s. constitution says (emphasis mine):

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

yes, and it can and will be argued again, most likely. it just needs to be argued more persuasively, and accurately. and in the lopez case eddie dane mentions, it was a 5-4 supreme court affirmation. hardly unanimous.

 

You're probably right that the Commerce Clause has been stretched to the maximum, but it seems that the Lopez case hinged on the decision that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was found to be unconstitutional because the federal government was attempting to limit possession. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Commerce Clause was used and upheld because the case dealt with the production of something, rather than possession. Using that as precedent, would it make more sense for Congress to attempt to enact federal laws regulating the production of firearms, rather than possession?

Honestly, the "I am not a lawyer" boilerplate is needed here, and I presume that a competent lawyer could argue just about anything.

 

That I shouldn't have an answer is an assumption on your part, which is fine, perhaps you also know more about the constitution than I do. I've never claimed to be an expert.

It's good that people take an interest in the constitution though, all too many simply attack it whilst viewing it outdated.

Individual rights trump collective rights, as they also should. < was my response, in this case the right for the individual to defend himself.

Arguments for why people should have the right to keep and bear arms have been presented, there's no need to repeat them, you don't have to find those arguments persuasive, you don't even have to like them.

So far discussions has taken place in two threads, this one and http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=253499

 

No country should have access to nuclear bombs, they are an evil weapon of last resort. The consequences for even 10-15 denoted in the major population areas would be the end of the world as we know it.

America has what 12000 ish
Russia has 5000+

Considering less than a 100 would put us in nuclear winter crazy numbers really.

Firearms will never be totally outlawed, its a difficult situation made worse by the school shootings.

The availibilty of firearms needs restricting increase the minimum age to 25 and add rules of ownership. Limit the amount of ammo for each weapon one can own ( they can still buy it from ranges where you fire them)

That alone would make it more difficult than the current rules.

But school shootings have happened in country's with much stricter gun laws than America.

But if your country can outlaw gambling in certain states, you can be sure they will try to outlaw guns.

 

Maybe it's a wrong way of thinking, but I think countries having access to nuclear bombs has some good sides too: since actually using them results in M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction), no one ever dares to seek conflict with one another, thus creating (forced) peace.
Of course with a mad country like N.-Korea you never know though…

 

Your argument certainly holds a lot more water. I wasn't bringing up Lopez to simply trade yours for mine. Only to point out what the fed has done to circumvent the limitations that have been imposed on it.

To answer your direct question, I would say the words used in the 2nd amendment does not allow that because amendments are not supposed to contradict each other. To limit production on something specifically named not to be infringed upon, to me, constitutes (pun) a contradiction. That said, if the 2nd amendment was amended, it stands to reason that the Commerce Clause probably could be used to regulate gun production and trade.

But again, the states can - and do - limit access guns because they have their own constitutions that may not have an amendment like the US 2nd.

On a side note regarding the Commerce Clause that I think is fairly relevant. The intent of the commerce clause is to facilitate commerce between states, to help it. The classic examples that lead them to include it was situations where you have someone in South Carolina wanting to sell something in Virginia but the state of North Carolina doesn't want them to. Let's say it's tobacco and North Carolina doesn't want South Carolina to be able to transport their product through their state - thus helping North Carolina tobacco farmers. The commerce clause grants the fed the ability to mediate that problem. Starting in the 30's it started being perverted into controlling production of things like wheat for on farms for its own consumption. After that it was used as a catch-all to accomplish anything they wanted because almost anything can be classified as commerce. But that's sort-of another discussion.

 

Indeed - that is a valid point, and one I had not properly considered in the context of the cases mentioned above.

It's funny how some of these arguments could almost be carried over verbatim into the health care and drug legalization debates.