http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/i...e_b_109531.html
I'll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th
Conservatives are thrilled about the Supreme Court decision settling the 2nd amendment issue in favor of individual gun owners (versus the idea that gun rights are only within the framework of a well-regulated militia). They are celebrating the constitution today. God bless their hearts. I wish they did that more often and about more amendments.
I believe in gun control. I believe that guns do kill people. In fact, they are designed to kill things. It is indisputable that they make killing a lot easier. That's what they're made for.
But I believe my side has lost this issue for now in the court of public opinion and in the Supreme Court. There are actually two different issues here. One is the policy argument concerning how much gun control we should have. The other is the constitutional argument of what the second amendment means.
I think it is reasonable to disagree on the meaning of the second amendment. In fact, I'm torn on it. If I heard this case myself as a judge and ultimately came down against the majority decision (which is not a certainty at all, I think this presents an excellent and close constitutional question -- apparently the Supreme Court agreed since they split 5-4 on it), I still wouldn't find the majority position unreasonable.
So, I am happy to concede that we should follow the second amendment to the letter of the law (as interpreted in this case). Now, can conservatives find it in their heart to agree that we should also follow the fourth amendment to the letter of the law? And if they can't, what possible logical or constitutional arguments can they have for fervently defending one amendment and rejecting another?
The fourth amendment clearly states that the government needs a warrant with probable cause in order for it to conduct a search or seizure. The Bush administration has been in flagrant violation of this for seven years now. They refuse to get warrants to wiretap conversations of Americans speaking with or emailing people abroad. This is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. But here conservatives find the constitution a little more inconvenient.
Justice Scalia warned after the recent Guantanamo Bay case, that the majority had almost certainly caused the deaths of many Americans with their decision. I think that's absurd hyperbole. But what is entirely possible is that the second amendment decision written by Scalia will lead to many more American deaths. But I don't begrudge him that. If he thinks that's the correct interpretation of the amendment, then our only recourse is to pass another amendment overriding it (not going to happen). We'll have to live with the extra deaths. Freedom isn't free.
But here, I propose a very fair trade. I will trade the second amendment for the fourth amendment. If the Bush administration releases the fourth amendment that it is currently holding hostage, I'm happy to consider the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment final and decisive. You keep the second amendment, we keep the fourth.
That seems like the fairest possible trade. My guess is that conservatives won't bite. They will continue the party line about how crucial it is that we follow the constitution when it comes to the second amendment and how important it is that we ignore the constitution when it comes to the fourth.
Young Turks on You Tube
Full Version: I'll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
Guns don't kill people, giving rights to POWs does.
This is one area where I disagree with most people on the left. Gun control laws as they have been tried in the past don't work. Fighting to make more of those same laws drives some potential voters away. There is statistical data to show that crime rates go up when you don't allow people to keep legal firearms in their homes so they aren't working in that regard. Progressive ideas here are a lose-lose.
I think that the 2nd amendment is totally misinterpreted now as the circumstances that the founding fathers had at the time of their writing no longer exist.
I think that the idea at the time was that the US would not have a federally instituted army that had anything in common with what we have now. With no monolithic standing national armed forces like we have today, the job of defending the country fell to state militias that are most analogous of what we would now call the National Guard - something where service was not your primary occupation, but where you were part of a unit that could be relied on come to aid of you state or country in a time of need.
The founding fathers also didn't believe in the government's right to own property. Thus acquisition of equipment and responsibility for it's maintenance would fall to the individual soldiers that would use that equipment.
The second amendment also talks about the security of a free state. It doesn't talk about the right to shoot your neighbor because his dog pooped in your yard. It doesn't even talk about shooting some guy that breaks into your house in the middle of the night.
In the 18th century, the arms that the founding fathers likely had in mind were muskets. Equally proficient at defending your property from a criminal or using as a primary weapon on the front lines in a conflict between two states or between the US and a foreign enemy. Today, technology has advanced to where a weapon used to defend yourself from a criminal are much different than anything your would find to be effective on a battlefield.
Since the circumstances have changed so drastically, a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment into today's language is nearly impossible. It would almost seem to infer that a person that belongs to the National Guard should be allowed to own a jet fighter or a Patriot Missile system. It seems to say nothing about the right of a person to own weapons that are practical for defending your property, your family or yourself from those who would harm you on a personal basis.
So it is a quandary. I don't feel that it's right to throw out clauses of the constitution just because they don't really pertain to modern circumstances. By that logic it could be said that the founding fathers could never have conceived of such a circumstance as the US government holding prisoners on foreign soil so why should Habeus Corpus apply in that circumstance. It's as valid of an argument as that the founding fathers could never have envisioned the art of warfare and personal defense become so disparate as we see them today so we should ignore or throw out the second amendment.
I don't think that the country will ever be able to come to an agreement on what the founding fathers meant. When you couple that ambiguity with the fact that taking guns away from law abiding people does nothing to address the problem of all of the stolen and blackmarket guns that most crimes are committed with are already out there, then I think that pushing for laws to stop the sale of legal guns to responsible citizens is a losing issue for progressives and Democrats.
We need better ideas for getting the illegal guns off the street and stopping the flow of blackmarket guns into and throughout the country. If we can accomplish that first, then we have a leg to stand to work towards getting passed some common sense laws of gun registration and what can and can't be sold legally. Otherwise we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.
This is one area where I disagree with most people on the left. Gun control laws as they have been tried in the past don't work. Fighting to make more of those same laws drives some potential voters away. There is statistical data to show that crime rates go up when you don't allow people to keep legal firearms in their homes so they aren't working in that regard. Progressive ideas here are a lose-lose.
I think that the 2nd amendment is totally misinterpreted now as the circumstances that the founding fathers had at the time of their writing no longer exist.
I think that the idea at the time was that the US would not have a federally instituted army that had anything in common with what we have now. With no monolithic standing national armed forces like we have today, the job of defending the country fell to state militias that are most analogous of what we would now call the National Guard - something where service was not your primary occupation, but where you were part of a unit that could be relied on come to aid of you state or country in a time of need.
The founding fathers also didn't believe in the government's right to own property. Thus acquisition of equipment and responsibility for it's maintenance would fall to the individual soldiers that would use that equipment.
The second amendment also talks about the security of a free state. It doesn't talk about the right to shoot your neighbor because his dog pooped in your yard. It doesn't even talk about shooting some guy that breaks into your house in the middle of the night.
In the 18th century, the arms that the founding fathers likely had in mind were muskets. Equally proficient at defending your property from a criminal or using as a primary weapon on the front lines in a conflict between two states or between the US and a foreign enemy. Today, technology has advanced to where a weapon used to defend yourself from a criminal are much different than anything your would find to be effective on a battlefield.
Since the circumstances have changed so drastically, a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment into today's language is nearly impossible. It would almost seem to infer that a person that belongs to the National Guard should be allowed to own a jet fighter or a Patriot Missile system. It seems to say nothing about the right of a person to own weapons that are practical for defending your property, your family or yourself from those who would harm you on a personal basis.
So it is a quandary. I don't feel that it's right to throw out clauses of the constitution just because they don't really pertain to modern circumstances. By that logic it could be said that the founding fathers could never have conceived of such a circumstance as the US government holding prisoners on foreign soil so why should Habeus Corpus apply in that circumstance. It's as valid of an argument as that the founding fathers could never have envisioned the art of warfare and personal defense become so disparate as we see them today so we should ignore or throw out the second amendment.
I don't think that the country will ever be able to come to an agreement on what the founding fathers meant. When you couple that ambiguity with the fact that taking guns away from law abiding people does nothing to address the problem of all of the stolen and blackmarket guns that most crimes are committed with are already out there, then I think that pushing for laws to stop the sale of legal guns to responsible citizens is a losing issue for progressives and Democrats.
We need better ideas for getting the illegal guns off the street and stopping the flow of blackmarket guns into and throughout the country. If we can accomplish that first, then we have a leg to stand to work towards getting passed some common sense laws of gun registration and what can and can't be sold legally. Otherwise we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.
Do take notoice that the SCOTUS stated that everyone has the right to have a gun.
They also said they can be regulated!
They also said they can be regulated!
QUOTE (Jimmy @ Friday, 27 June 2008, 1:17 pm) 
Guns don't kill people, giving rights to POWs does.
This is one area where I disagree with most people on the left. Gun control laws as they have been tried in the past don't work. Fighting to make more of those same laws drives some potential voters away. There is statistical data to show that crime rates go up when you don't allow people to keep legal firearms in their homes so they aren't working in that regard. Progressive ideas here are a lose-lose.
I think that the 2nd amendment is totally misinterpreted now as the circumstances that the founding fathers had at the time of their writing no longer exist.
I think that the idea at the time was that the US would not have a federally instituted army that had anything in common with what we have now. With no monolithic standing national armed forces like we have today, the job of defending the country fell to state militias that are most analogous of what we would now call the National Guard - something where service was not your primary occupation, but where you were part of a unit that could be relied on come to aid of you state or country in a time of need.
The founding fathers also didn't believe in the government's right to own property. Thus acquisition of equipment and responsibility for it's maintenance would fall to the individual soldiers that would use that equipment.
The second amendment also talks about the security of a free state. It doesn't talk about the right to shoot your neighbor because his dog pooped in your yard. It doesn't even talk about shooting some guy that breaks into your house in the middle of the night.
In the 18th century, the arms that the founding fathers likely had in mind were muskets. Equally proficient at defending your property from a criminal or using as a primary weapon on the front lines in a conflict between two states or between the US and a foreign enemy. Today, technology has advanced to where a weapon used to defend yourself from a criminal are much different than anything your would find to be effective on a battlefield.
Since the circumstances have changed so drastically, a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment into today's language is nearly impossible. It would almost seem to infer that a person that belongs to the National Guard should be allowed to own a jet fighter or a Patriot Missile system. It seems to say nothing about the right of a person to own weapons that are practical for defending your property, your family or yourself from those who would harm you on a personal basis.
So it is a quandary. I don't feel that it's right to throw out clauses of the constitution just because they don't really pertain to modern circumstances. By that logic it could be said that the founding fathers could never have conceived of such a circumstance as the US government holding prisoners on foreign soil so why should Habeus Corpus apply in that circumstance. It's as valid of an argument as that the founding fathers could never have envisioned the art of warfare and personal defense become so disparate as we see them today so we should ignore or throw out the second amendment.
I don't think that the country will ever be able to come to an agreement on what the founding fathers meant. When you couple that ambiguity with the fact that taking guns away from law abiding people does nothing to address the problem of all of the stolen and blackmarket guns that most crimes are committed with are already out there, then I think that pushing for laws to stop the sale of legal guns to responsible citizens is a losing issue for progressives and Democrats.
We need better ideas for getting the illegal guns off the street and stopping the flow of blackmarket guns into and throughout the country. If we can accomplish that first, then we have a leg to stand to work towards getting passed some common sense laws of gun registration and what can and can't be sold legally. Otherwise we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.
This is one area where I disagree with most people on the left. Gun control laws as they have been tried in the past don't work. Fighting to make more of those same laws drives some potential voters away. There is statistical data to show that crime rates go up when you don't allow people to keep legal firearms in their homes so they aren't working in that regard. Progressive ideas here are a lose-lose.
I think that the 2nd amendment is totally misinterpreted now as the circumstances that the founding fathers had at the time of their writing no longer exist.
I think that the idea at the time was that the US would not have a federally instituted army that had anything in common with what we have now. With no monolithic standing national armed forces like we have today, the job of defending the country fell to state militias that are most analogous of what we would now call the National Guard - something where service was not your primary occupation, but where you were part of a unit that could be relied on come to aid of you state or country in a time of need.
The founding fathers also didn't believe in the government's right to own property. Thus acquisition of equipment and responsibility for it's maintenance would fall to the individual soldiers that would use that equipment.
The second amendment also talks about the security of a free state. It doesn't talk about the right to shoot your neighbor because his dog pooped in your yard. It doesn't even talk about shooting some guy that breaks into your house in the middle of the night.
In the 18th century, the arms that the founding fathers likely had in mind were muskets. Equally proficient at defending your property from a criminal or using as a primary weapon on the front lines in a conflict between two states or between the US and a foreign enemy. Today, technology has advanced to where a weapon used to defend yourself from a criminal are much different than anything your would find to be effective on a battlefield.
Since the circumstances have changed so drastically, a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment into today's language is nearly impossible. It would almost seem to infer that a person that belongs to the National Guard should be allowed to own a jet fighter or a Patriot Missile system. It seems to say nothing about the right of a person to own weapons that are practical for defending your property, your family or yourself from those who would harm you on a personal basis.
So it is a quandary. I don't feel that it's right to throw out clauses of the constitution just because they don't really pertain to modern circumstances. By that logic it could be said that the founding fathers could never have conceived of such a circumstance as the US government holding prisoners on foreign soil so why should Habeus Corpus apply in that circumstance. It's as valid of an argument as that the founding fathers could never have envisioned the art of warfare and personal defense become so disparate as we see them today so we should ignore or throw out the second amendment.
I don't think that the country will ever be able to come to an agreement on what the founding fathers meant. When you couple that ambiguity with the fact that taking guns away from law abiding people does nothing to address the problem of all of the stolen and blackmarket guns that most crimes are committed with are already out there, then I think that pushing for laws to stop the sale of legal guns to responsible citizens is a losing issue for progressives and Democrats.
We need better ideas for getting the illegal guns off the street and stopping the flow of blackmarket guns into and throughout the country. If we can accomplish that first, then we have a leg to stand to work towards getting passed some common sense laws of gun registration and what can and can't be sold legally. Otherwise we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Registration? Why? Do criminals register? No. Never have never will. Has the "war on drugs" stopped the flow
of dope into our nation? No. If you commit a crime with a gun, it isn't the guns fault. Its the idiot that was the
criminal that is at fault. You dont shoot the pig because the fox stole a chicken. When you create more laws,
you wrap your self with the chains of future tyranny. We have all the laws we could ever need. Period.
ENFORCE THEM! The courts need to grow a pair, not worry about someone being offended, and deal with the
situation at hand. I dont give a rats arse if someone is black, latino, asian, or saracen. I really dont give a damn
if they had a bad childhood. Do the crime , do the time. Creating gun laws and the such is foolish at least and
dangerous at worst. What difference is there if the weapon is blackmarket or not? I don't have any sort
of "sales" permit to sell my weapons. I am free to sell them to anyone I please. ( I also have the right to refuse
sale to anyone I don't believe should have one. I dont care if they are a foriegn national that doesnt speak
english or a wall street dirt bag in a three piece armani.) Am I dealing "blackmarket" weapons? Its all in the
definition used at the time. Semantics are dangerous nowadays. Everything is relative. RELATIVISM is killing
us! We need right and wrong. WE NEED TRADITION!
The only way to get "illegal" weapons off the streets is to take the punks behind them off the planet. The citizenry must be utilized.
QUOTE (felonius @ Friday, 27 June 2008, 7:06 pm)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Registration? Why? Do criminals register? No. Never have never will. Has the "war on drugs" stopped the flow
of dope into our nation? No. If you commit a crime with a gun, it isn't the guns fault. Its the idiot that was the
criminal that is at fault. You dont shoot the pig because the fox stole a chicken. When you create more laws,
you wrap your self with the chains of future tyranny. We have all the laws we could ever need. Period.
ENFORCE THEM! The courts need to grow a pair, not worry about someone being offended, and deal with the
situation at hand. I dont give a rats arse if someone is black, latino, asian, or saracen. I really dont give a damn
if they had a bad childhood. Do the crime , do the time. Creating gun laws and the such is foolish at least and
dangerous at worst. What difference is there if the weapon is blackmarket or not? I don't have any sort
of "sales" permit to sell my weapons. I am free to sell them to anyone I please. ( I also have the right to refuse
sale to anyone I don't believe should have one. I dont care if they are a foriegn national that doesnt speak
english or a wall street dirt bag in a three piece armani.) Am I dealing "blackmarket" weapons? Its all in the
definition used at the time. Semantics are dangerous nowadays. Everything is relative. RELATIVISM is killing
us! We need right and wrong. WE NEED TRADITION!
The only way to get "illegal" weapons off the streets is to take the punks behind them off the planet. The citizenry must be utilized.
Registration? Why? Do criminals register? No. Never have never will. Has the "war on drugs" stopped the flow
of dope into our nation? No. If you commit a crime with a gun, it isn't the guns fault. Its the idiot that was the
criminal that is at fault. You dont shoot the pig because the fox stole a chicken. When you create more laws,
you wrap your self with the chains of future tyranny. We have all the laws we could ever need. Period.
ENFORCE THEM! The courts need to grow a pair, not worry about someone being offended, and deal with the
situation at hand. I dont give a rats arse if someone is black, latino, asian, or saracen. I really dont give a damn
if they had a bad childhood. Do the crime , do the time. Creating gun laws and the such is foolish at least and
dangerous at worst. What difference is there if the weapon is blackmarket or not? I don't have any sort
of "sales" permit to sell my weapons. I am free to sell them to anyone I please. ( I also have the right to refuse
sale to anyone I don't believe should have one. I dont care if they are a foriegn national that doesnt speak
english or a wall street dirt bag in a three piece armani.) Am I dealing "blackmarket" weapons? Its all in the
definition used at the time. Semantics are dangerous nowadays. Everything is relative. RELATIVISM is killing
us! We need right and wrong. WE NEED TRADITION!
The only way to get "illegal" weapons off the streets is to take the punks behind them off the planet. The citizenry must be utilized.
so how do you suppose we utilize the "citizenry"?
I might remind you to read the forum guidelines before you comment, as you may very well be banned.
Your "right" to sell your weapons sounds as if it may very well be against the law, and we don't appreciate that kind of action endorsed here...
coupled with the lack of appreciation for the the true constitutional movement toward protection from ACTUAL threat(which I guess all nut-jobs feel is up for debate at this point), I don't believe you feel the need to back your assertions with case law, or even a decent amount of thought.
I've got no problem with pro-second amendment argument that come with a modicum of experience either. I find the handgun ban in DC to be unconstitutional, especially considering the urban homicide rates there, but to come here, unannounced, with a diatribe of murderous intentions, doesn't do you or us any good. Think through your posts, and make a case for them or get the hell out. we've got no use for trolls here.
By the way, the original push in the post was securing fourth amendment rights instead of backing gun nuts. What good is the second if a cop can take a legal gun away whenever he feels like it because he decided on his third shift that you look like a terrorist? How comfy would your gun make you feel in a secret prison in Afghanistan, or in a stress position in Guantanamo? Read the post, numb-nutz, before you get your knickers in a knot. We speak at a depth beyond talking points here, and if your brain isn't capable of comprehending (oooh... be careful, I used a four syllable word there...) then then go away!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.