Favorite editorial cartoons: July 2010
- Thread starter Mike Ventrella
- Start date
jpariury
Duke
I generally feel people take the second amendment way out of context. The purpose wasn't to acknowledge the right of a regulated militia to bear arms, the goal was to have an armed citizenry that could, at any time, form a well-regulated militia. Within the context of the founding fathers' apparent intent, they weren't seeking to codify protections for the rights of a militia, they were attempting to put into law the right for individuals to have weapons. I never understand why libs insist on a broad interpretation of the first amendment, but a narrow one for the second.
wowy319
Artisan
Mostly because the first amendment doesn't impose a qualifier. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I can't see anything that would limit freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion or petitioning. At all. I don't see how any of that is open to interpretation.
However, when the second amendment has a qualifier to it that is VERY much open to interpretation. "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's not as clear as the first amendment. You could easily argue that if my right to bear arms can't be infringed, I should have the right to assemble chemical weapons or purchase a full-auto gun with incendiary rounds. You could also interpret it to say that you could only own firearms. The language was made in the days of muskets and flintlocks, and it's a little bit dated considering the incredible scope of items people have made to murder each other with since then. That's why there's a discrepancy. For me, it has nothing to do with a dislike of guns or "hating America"(copyright Fox News), but has much more to do with wanting weapons that have no place in a civilian neighborhood (and I really don't see how anyone can argue that a civilian homestead needs armor-piercing rounds or an assault weapon). If someone wants something like a revolver, a rifle, shotgun or anything else along those lines, they can go for it. I just have issues with military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians, and I think that's a fairly reasonable thing to take issue with.
However, when the second amendment has a qualifier to it that is VERY much open to interpretation. "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's not as clear as the first amendment. You could easily argue that if my right to bear arms can't be infringed, I should have the right to assemble chemical weapons or purchase a full-auto gun with incendiary rounds. You could also interpret it to say that you could only own firearms. The language was made in the days of muskets and flintlocks, and it's a little bit dated considering the incredible scope of items people have made to murder each other with since then. That's why there's a discrepancy. For me, it has nothing to do with a dislike of guns or "hating America"(copyright Fox News), but has much more to do with wanting weapons that have no place in a civilian neighborhood (and I really don't see how anyone can argue that a civilian homestead needs armor-piercing rounds or an assault weapon). If someone wants something like a revolver, a rifle, shotgun or anything else along those lines, they can go for it. I just have issues with military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians, and I think that's a fairly reasonable thing to take issue with.
jpariury
Duke
It was also made in the day of cannon, explosives, and sword-wielding elephants. Much as there is no qualifier on "speech", there is no qualifier on "arms" either. What about the first part indicates to you that the lead-in is a qualifier, rather than descriptive? We're not dealing with five layers of translation and thousands of years of geo-political and cultural shift here. Had the intent been to be restrictive on what arms were and weren't legal, they could have done so in language just as clear. If you deduce/decide that freedom of speech means any and all speech, why shouldn't you interpret arms to mean any and all arms and people to mean, well, people? The founding fathers had as much insight into communication technologies as they did warfare. The intention that individuals have the right to carry things with which to kill other human beings seems fairly straightforward. If we're arguing scale, then how could anyone suggest that they could predict the internet but not thermonuclear devices? If it's a function of personal comfort, then you're just being selective, and any discussion about what was intended is thrown out the window.wowy319 said:
Personally, I lean as much towards supporting private ownership of military-grade weapons as I do supporting religious, libelous, slanderous, and hate speech, and much as the founding fathers foresaw the ability of people to promote ideas that could and foreseeably would overthrow the very government they built up, so to did they foresee the ability for citizens to privately own weapons that would achieve the same end.
That said, the SCOTUS ruling has jack-all to do with the ownership of military-grade weapons, and it doesn't really address why liberals seem to want to read the second amendment as a "right of militias" rather than "the right of the people", as the editorial cartoon seems to want to infer.
jpariury said:
see: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Read Justice Steven's Dissenting. It makes for a very interesting and eye opening read. A little history is great for illuminating those hidden dark places.
Inaryn
Knight
Maybe I'm just odd. When I read the second amendment, what I get is this:
Sometimes, it's necessary for the common man to band together to repel a force that would impugn their way of life. To that end, they should have every right to obtain and keep what weapons they deem necessary to do so (within reason*) should the need arise. However, being that they are preparing for such a severe case, they also, then, have the responsibility to properly care for, maintain, and secure those weapons lest they harm an innocent person.
*Nuclear warheads, biological warfare, and generally any weapon that has the possibility of making an entire area uninhabitable are just plain unreasonable. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
I'm a pretty bleeding heart liberal at times. But I have no problem with anyone owning as many guns of as many types as they want. So long as they are a responsible person about that ownership. When people stop being responsible for themselves, the government has a tendency to step in and make laws to be responsible for them. Frankly, the irresponsible people deserve it. The problem is that responsible folks get caught in the net as well. But you can't eat your cake and have it to, y'know? It's a tough position to be in, and I don't really envy anyone having to sit down and make that decision for other people.
I guess part of the other side of the problem is you have people who view their own government and the forces it has as impugning on their way of life. And things get very shade-of-grey when you start delving into that realm.
Sometimes, it's necessary for the common man to band together to repel a force that would impugn their way of life. To that end, they should have every right to obtain and keep what weapons they deem necessary to do so (within reason*) should the need arise. However, being that they are preparing for such a severe case, they also, then, have the responsibility to properly care for, maintain, and secure those weapons lest they harm an innocent person.
*Nuclear warheads, biological warfare, and generally any weapon that has the possibility of making an entire area uninhabitable are just plain unreasonable. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
I'm a pretty bleeding heart liberal at times. But I have no problem with anyone owning as many guns of as many types as they want. So long as they are a responsible person about that ownership. When people stop being responsible for themselves, the government has a tendency to step in and make laws to be responsible for them. Frankly, the irresponsible people deserve it. The problem is that responsible folks get caught in the net as well. But you can't eat your cake and have it to, y'know? It's a tough position to be in, and I don't really envy anyone having to sit down and make that decision for other people.
I guess part of the other side of the problem is you have people who view their own government and the forces it has as impugning on their way of life. And things get very shade-of-grey when you start delving into that realm.
To borrow a line of thought from Randall Balmer, I have no interest in making nuclear weapon possession illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
The 2nd amendment, until the last few years, had always been interpreted to apply to the military and not as an individual right. Seriously, the Supreme Court, when it did rule on this issue in the past, said that there can be restrictions on guns, and previous cases quoted the founding fathers and showed what their intent was.
This, of course, did not go over well with the NRA and other groups who, over the years, managed to convince people that the amendment means something else and that (as the cartoon shows) the opening part of the amendment is completely meaningless.
I find it interesting that many people who argue about "the founders intent" and "not looking for loopholes in the law" and other such things seem to have no problem using a loophole and ignoring the founder's intent when it comes to issues they are interested in.
I don't think all guns should be banned but at the same time I do not believe that the rights in the 2nd amendment are so absolute that anyone can have any gun they want to carry anyplace they want to. Even the 1st amendment with its clear meaning doesn't allow you to exercise that right any way you want at any time you want.
This, of course, did not go over well with the NRA and other groups who, over the years, managed to convince people that the amendment means something else and that (as the cartoon shows) the opening part of the amendment is completely meaningless.
I find it interesting that many people who argue about "the founders intent" and "not looking for loopholes in the law" and other such things seem to have no problem using a loophole and ignoring the founder's intent when it comes to issues they are interested in.
I don't think all guns should be banned but at the same time I do not believe that the rights in the 2nd amendment are so absolute that anyone can have any gun they want to carry anyplace they want to. Even the 1st amendment with its clear meaning doesn't allow you to exercise that right any way you want at any time you want.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
I always thought... and this may not have been the intent, this is just my, "if society were perfect" thought... that something like the national guard was what the 2nd amendment was referring to. A state controlled militia made of the people of that state to handle the defense and emergency situations of that state. I think the governors and state senate should have power over them and decide where to deploy them. instead of having 1 large federal army, we could have 50 small armies, allowing us to defend us from attack but not fly across the world to conquer other countries.
the only problem I see with that concept is that states would go to war with each other a lot easier... I haven't figured out how to prevent that yet... so my society is on hold for now.
the only problem I see with that concept is that states would go to war with each other a lot easier... I haven't figured out how to prevent that yet... so my society is on hold for now.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
The main problem is that, as some have alluded to here, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when "military" had a completely different meaning. So we really can't just say "Well, the founding fathers meant this" and be done with it. The founding fathers, looking at our current military, could very well say "Hey, that's not what we meant."
Also, guns were different back then -- the founding fathers could easily say "Hey, when we agreed to that, we never imagined semi-automatic weapons. Our guns took a complete minute to load, had one bullet, and blew up in your face half the time."
Also, guns were different back then -- the founding fathers could easily say "Hey, when we agreed to that, we never imagined semi-automatic weapons. Our guns took a complete minute to load, had one bullet, and blew up in your face half the time."
Inaryn
Knight
A man has a right to defend what is his.
Guns are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. They're particularly effective tools, granted, but a gun, sitting on a counter with no one near it isn't going to do anything by itself.
It's the people using those tools that is the issue.
I have a right to own a gun. I have the complete responsibility, should I enact that right, to know how to care for and secure that weapon.
The problem in today's society is that we don't have people taking responsibility for their actions. The founding fathers also lived in a time where people had a lot more personal responsibility for themselves. You knew how to properly use your guns, you kept them clean, you didn't leave them loaded, and you didn't leave them where your kids could get to them. Technology may have changed; guns may be more efficient at killing you fast and you won't sit there and get sepsis and die from a bullet in your leg, but the responsibility you need to have to own one shouldn't have.
Guns are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. They're particularly effective tools, granted, but a gun, sitting on a counter with no one near it isn't going to do anything by itself.
It's the people using those tools that is the issue.
I have a right to own a gun. I have the complete responsibility, should I enact that right, to know how to care for and secure that weapon.
The problem in today's society is that we don't have people taking responsibility for their actions. The founding fathers also lived in a time where people had a lot more personal responsibility for themselves. You knew how to properly use your guns, you kept them clean, you didn't leave them loaded, and you didn't leave them where your kids could get to them. Technology may have changed; guns may be more efficient at killing you fast and you won't sit there and get sepsis and die from a bullet in your leg, but the responsibility you need to have to own one shouldn't have.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
Well there are two different conversations going on here.
1. What does the Constitution say
2. What your personal desires are
Just because I want the Constitution to say something doesn't mean it does.
1. What does the Constitution say
2. What your personal desires are
Just because I want the Constitution to say something doesn't mean it does.
Inaryn
Knight
I think it's more a statement of personal preference to think certain weapons should be legislated against.
Certainly weapons of mass destruction are their own category in and of themselves. But I truly don't see any constitutional difference between someone being able to own a hunting rifle and someone being able to own a semi-automatic. A gun is a gun. You still point it at a thing, squeeze the trigger, and make a big boom and possibly a hole in the thing you were pointing it at. Crafting legislation against certain gun types just makes it so those sales go to the black markets. Crafting legislation that puts the onus of responsibility on the owner would be far more effective. And, in my opinion, much more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind.
Certainly weapons of mass destruction are their own category in and of themselves. But I truly don't see any constitutional difference between someone being able to own a hunting rifle and someone being able to own a semi-automatic. A gun is a gun. You still point it at a thing, squeeze the trigger, and make a big boom and possibly a hole in the thing you were pointing it at. Crafting legislation against certain gun types just makes it so those sales go to the black markets. Crafting legislation that puts the onus of responsibility on the owner would be far more effective. And, in my opinion, much more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind.
Im no constitutional lawyer, but I would think that if the founding fathers didnt want guns owned by people, then people wouldnt have been legally allowed to immediately after the country was formed.
The militia wording to me, means that everyone should be able to have guns IN CASE we need to form a militia quickly. If people do not have ready access to guns, then how would a militia be formed in an emergency situation? I see it as more of a justification for the right, rather than a restriction to it. Why would the government need to make an ammendment just to say "oh yeah, we can make an army* so WE are allowed to have guns, but not you"? That makes no sence, an army* is obviously allowed to own guns, so no amendment is necessary for that.
* Army and militia is the same thing in the constitution before you use that as an argument. Heres an example "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia"
---Amendment V
The militia wording to me, means that everyone should be able to have guns IN CASE we need to form a militia quickly. If people do not have ready access to guns, then how would a militia be formed in an emergency situation? I see it as more of a justification for the right, rather than a restriction to it. Why would the government need to make an ammendment just to say "oh yeah, we can make an army* so WE are allowed to have guns, but not you"? That makes no sence, an army* is obviously allowed to own guns, so no amendment is necessary for that.
* Army and militia is the same thing in the constitution before you use that as an argument. Heres an example "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia"
---Amendment V
jpariury
Duke
I'm not sure that the statement that the second amendment as an individual right is only a recent development, even allowing for "last few years" to mean as much as thirty years ago. It seems like part of the complaint of Dred Scott was that they didn't want black folks walking around toting guns, and apparently Kentucky had a case in the 1800s that also found in favor of it as an individual right, so the argument and court finding aren't all that new.
I haven't really seen an argument that elucidates why "the people" should be selectively interpreted as "the people who are in a militia" in this one instance, and not others.
I also don't understand why one lobby or the other doesn't seek to introduce a new amendment that modifies/clarifies how the second amendment should be interpreted as the country currently sees fit.
I haven't really seen an argument that elucidates why "the people" should be selectively interpreted as "the people who are in a militia" in this one instance, and not others.
I also don't understand why one lobby or the other doesn't seek to introduce a new amendment that modifies/clarifies how the second amendment should be interpreted as the country currently sees fit.
Tangential: what kind of perfect society needs a militia?Robb Graves said:
star trek.
but seriously, even in a Utopian society like Mr. Roddenberry's vision, he saw the need for an ordered establishment able to be mobilized either in defense or for things like exploration, etc. Yes, 50 guys who live in the same area COULD potentially respond to a disaster and render aid...
but 50 well trained men with a definitive chain of command is always going to be efficient in a situation like that.
but seriously, even in a Utopian society like Mr. Roddenberry's vision, he saw the need for an ordered establishment able to be mobilized either in defense or for things like exploration, etc. Yes, 50 guys who live in the same area COULD potentially respond to a disaster and render aid...
but 50 well trained men with a definitive chain of command is always going to be efficient in a situation like that.
Agahi said:
Actually, the verbiage "in the land and sea forces, or in the militia" pretty much does draw a distinction between a nationally maintained land based military force an a militia, which it cites separately.
