Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Aug 2022, 7:08 am

bbauska
The Constitution is not vague. The difference is the interpretation of the words used. I could have used ANY of the Amendments, and it would have a variance in the way people interpret


In a clearly written document, there is very little room for "interpretations".
Your statement admits my point.

bbauska
You seem to want ANY Constitution be one in which NOBODY would disagree with.


It is clearly advantageous to have language in a constitution that everyone understands and agrees upon its meaning. Modern Constitutions around the world do that.

bbauska
This will never happen


Well, the road not taken ... begins with apathy. (Or the rationale that the current system works to the advantage of a privileged minority that is heavily invested in the status quo.)

bbauska
If enough people do not like the rules of government, there is a system for that. It is called the "Amendment Process", and it is found in Article 5 of the US Constitution.


Another anachronism. When fixing a badly written legal document is made virtually impossible because of the byzantine amendment process, you ensure that will continue to function poorly.

Because the US Constitution is so abstract it provides out side importance and influence to the Supreme Court. Other countries supreme courts aren't nearly as political, because their justices
aren't working from a vague document...
You know that Jefferson said that the Constitution should be regularly rewritten?

https://qz.com/1919535/how-should-the-u ... stitution/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Aug 2022, 8:35 am

We certainly will not agree on this.

I asked you to tell me what "Shall not be infringed" means. You skipped over any question I give.

You wish only to broadcast your opinion, and not answer anyone else's. My retirement is much too short (and I want it to last MANY years!) to have a one sided talk with an unhearing person.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Aug 2022, 6:10 am

bbauska
I asked you to tell me what "Shall not be infringed" means. You skipped over any question I give


because they are total non=sequiturs.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 17 Aug 2022, 8:48 am

bbauska wrote: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.

Well let's take the words SPECIFICALLY as the Founding Fathers wrote:

Because of a the need of a militia for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yet, those on the left (of which you are one) wish to infringe upon those rights. Perhaps the ambiguity comes from the Constitution of the US not being what you want it to be? Therefore, you look to it's change. Perhaps the ambiguity is in your desires and not the document.

To me, the 2nd Amendment is clear. As are all the other Amendments.

What does "Shall not be infringed" mean to you?


We infringe the rights of people regarding he second amendment all the time. You can't have an atom bomb, or really any bomb over a certain size. You can't have a fully automatic machine gun. You can't have a tank with working high explosive guns (or machine guns, for that matter.) I think flame throwers and war planes are out, but you may know better.

You're saying that the words are clear, the right should not be infringed, yet you ignore the many times we infringe that right.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Aug 2022, 2:04 pm

Good to hear from you, GeoJanes.

These weapons should not be sold to the public, as they are military weapons. If the government does not want the general public to have them, then do not sell them. I don't know about you, but I have been in quite a few gun shops, and gun sale shows. Never once have I seen for sale:

Bombs
Atomic weapons
Fully Automatic weapons(BTW, I have fired these in the military... What a rush!)
Tank with working armaments (I have seen a tank, however)
War planes
Flamethrowers

I am pretty sure that those who disagree with the need of the 2nd Amendment are not talking about any of the above. It is my belief that they wish to infringe upon the rights of the people to own other weapons, or any weapon at all. Would you say that is true?

Quite honestly, I would love to have a working battle tank. I am sure that I would not be using that weapon for criminal activity. I DO have other weapons. I have not used any of them for criminal activity.

Those who do, should be charged, tried, and convicted to the fullest extent of the law.

My point is not that there are certain infringements. It is that the weapon is not the item violating the law. It is the criminal, and they should be bearing the result of their criminal activity, not the general public.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 18 Aug 2022, 1:22 pm

bbauska wrote:I am pretty sure that those who disagree with the need of the 2nd Amendment are not talking about any of the above. It is my belief that they wish to infringe upon the rights of the people to own other weapons, or any weapon at all. Would you say that is true?


My point is that you've been saying that this right shall not be infringed. Yet it's being infringed, and you're all right with it? Not sure I understand your logic. Either you have the right or you don't.

You seem to be suggesting that because these are weapons of war, they are different, but that's against the plain language of the constitution, which references a militia, which is: "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency." What is a military force without military weapons?

It seems to me that any infringement of that right is unconstitutional and likely to be overturned. Wouldn't you agree?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Aug 2022, 2:12 pm

Close. I can understand the restriction on some weapons. I would call that a compromise position.

This entire line of the 2nd Amendment comes from "He who shall remain nameless" arguing that the US Constitution is vague. My point is that Constitution is NOT vague. It most certainly is disagreed with by some, but I suggest the amendment process, and that person does not want that.

Disagreement does not equal vagueness.

What compromise position would you offer?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Aug 2022, 7:41 am

bbauska wrote:Close. I can understand the restriction on some weapons. I would call that a compromise position.


There is nothing in the second amendment or the constitution for that matter, that suggests that "compromise" is a thing. Does it mention compromise anywhere? Where are you getting that? Are you just making it up?

The time to compromise is before the law is written, like the 3/5ths compromise. You don't compromise after the law is written.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Aug 2022, 8:44 am

geojanes wrote:
bbauska wrote:Close. I can understand the restriction on some weapons. I would call that a compromise position.


There is nothing in the second amendment or the constitution for that matter, that suggests that "compromise" is a thing. Does it mention compromise anywhere? Where are you getting that? Are you just making it up?

The time to compromise is before the law is written, like the 3/5ths compromise. You don't compromise after the law is written.


Then follow the law. Do not infringe.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Aug 2022, 11:38 am

bbauska wrote:
Then follow the law. Do not infringe.


Bazookas for all.

But wait, that's against the law. I'm so confused.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Aug 2022, 11:54 am

You don't want compromise, and you won't agree to the actual verbage of the Constitution.

Just no pleasing those on the Left. I am sure that is the reason the we cannot work together on different sides of the aisle...

Quite sad. :frown: :frown: :no:
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Aug 2022, 12:19 pm

bbauska
You don't want compromise, and you won't agree to the actual verbage of the Constitution.


See, in a clearly written constitution, there wouldn't be room for disagreement.

You keep confirming my claim. (Or haven't you noticed?)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Aug 2022, 1:03 pm

Noted.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 22 Aug 2022, 9:10 am

bbauska wrote:You don't want compromise, and you won't agree to the actual verbage of the Constitution.

Just no pleasing those on the Left. I am sure that is the reason the we cannot work together on different sides of the aisle...

Quite sad. :frown: :frown: :no:


Not sure if you're fully understanding the point.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 22 Aug 2022, 10:34 am

geojanes wrote:
bbauska wrote:You don't want compromise, and you won't agree to the actual verbage of the Constitution.

Just no pleasing those on the Left. I am sure that is the reason the we cannot work together on different sides of the aisle...

Quite sad. :frown: :frown: :no:


Not sure if you're fully understanding the point.


Perhaps I am not. You are saying that the time for compromise is before the law is written.

Do you the law should be followed AFTER the law is written? I do. That is why I asked the person not to be named about the vagueness he questioned. If there is a change needed, then use the amendment process.

What are you saying? The law is not agreed with by you and the un-named. What should you do about it if not amend?