Skip to main content

View Diary: Assault Weapons, Bullying, Flat Taxes, and Rational Conversation (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You can't clarify an Amendment. (6+ / 0-)

    Either it exists, or it doesn't. Your interpretation does not count.  Judicial decisions are the only way possibly to interpret the Amendment's definition. So far, their rulings do not supplant "shall not be infringed", and the prefatory clause does not negate that.
     They have left room for regulation, but as I said above, in the current political climate less will be the rule.

    "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

    by meagert on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 01:54:48 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  sure you can (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino

      but of course it would take amending the constitution to do so, which would be almost as difficult as attempting a repeal (which i wouldn't favor even if i thought it was possible). other than that you're right, but the courts do et it wrong sometimes.

      The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived. -James Madison

      by Frank Lee Speaking on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 02:14:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like I said, you can't clarify. (4+ / 0-)

        Amending is amending. As I stated above, and you have denied, you must be honest with your argument. If your interpretation is correct, the 2nd is an anachronism, and being truthful to yourself, you should advocate its repeal.

        "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

        by meagert on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 02:36:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  technically speaking you're correct (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino

          so i'll give you that. but functionally the result would be the same. pass an amendment amending the amendment.

          i would not concede that it is an anachronism either; it could conceivably open the door for tyranny from within or from without, though in my estimation highly unlikely, but rather than getting stuck on this point, consider the rest of what i said about the amendment and assault weapons...the argument is really that the second amendment does not prevent us from regulating them in the manner i described. and i'm not really interpreting anything if you look closely. i'm just saying what the amendment says, and what our founding fathers have said about it.

          Even if it was an anachronism though, being truthful to myself requires considerations beyond that, such as whether it's worth the effort (it isn't), how the right would react (not well), and whether or not there are more important things to focus on (there are).

          The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived. -James Madison

          by Frank Lee Speaking on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 03:01:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your logic is defying logic (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tom Seaview, Otteray Scribe, gerrilea
            and i'm not really interpreting anything if you look closely. i'm just saying what the amendment says,
            Sorry, but that's called interpretation.
            Even if it was an anachronism though, being truthful to myself requires considerations beyond that, such as whether it's worth the effort (it isn't), how the right would react (not well), and whether or not there are more important things to focus on (there are).
            So, if it's not worth the effort, why the letter with an emphasis on your interpretation of the  Amendment's anachronistic purpose? Who cares how the right would react? And if there are more important things to focus on, why did you bother?
            The only thing logical part was your statement  about the ability to regulate. That I covered in my first comment.

            "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

            by meagert on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 03:17:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  saying the purpose of the second amendment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino

              is "the security of a free state" is NOT an interpretation. That point is fairly well explained in the diary and isn't really debatable. Just like you can't debate that the purpose of the Constitution is to "form a more perfect Union, establish justice..." etc. etc. Why? Because IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT.

              I can understand why making this rhetorical point may be confusing and perhaps takes away from the later points by leading people to a conclusion that i'm not really trying to lead them to, so I'll need to consider that. Thanks.

              The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived. -James Madison

              by Frank Lee Speaking on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 03:52:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site