The Political Discussion Thread

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

That's because you are.

[Falcon Horus]

and in religious terms the rainbow is a sign of God's promise never to flood the whole earth again...little religion trivia

It is indeed, but until I saw it on the wikipedia page I had no idea.

[Gatefan1976]

It is indeed, but until I saw it on the wikipedia page I had no idea.

MG can correct me if I am wrong, but after the 40 days and nights, I believe Noah asked for a sign, and the Rainbow was what he sent to seal the compact of never hitting the big reset button again.

Of course, we know it was just Odin out for a jaunt, looking for Frost Giants............

[Gatefan1976]

Don't forget about Baldr! He's the God of Beauty and Innocence.

It's almost as if the strict gender roles thing is a modern invention..

Say it isn't so!!

[Annoyed]

Quite, quite easily.
They have done it to voting rights, they would have no issue with doing it to gun rights.
Basically, see what Womble said.

If the government strictly adhered to the 2nd amendment and did not infringe upon the rights of citizens to be armed, how could they? The very premise is that the govt. can't restrict gun ownership.

[Gatefan1976]

If the government strictly adhered to the 2nd amendment and did not infringe upon the rights of citizens to be armed, how could they? The very premise is that the govt. can't restrict gun ownership.

Easy, it was in the brief you skimmed.
Under a strict constructionist viewpoint of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms would be re-attached to the notion of a militia, instantly removing the -very- loose view pushed by the NRA.
Make sure you screen the militia to include like minded individuals, and away you go.
Or, in other words, see what Womble said.

[jelgate]

Using that definition, doesn't the very concept of libel and slander infringe the 1st Amendment

[Gatefan1976]

Using that definition, doesn't the very concept of libel and slander infringe the 1st Amendment

Can you elaborate on what you mean Jel?
Do you mean using a strict constructionist view?

[jelgate]

I was pointing out no amendment has limitless power. The government "infringes" on our right s for the welfare of the community. The classic yelling fire in a movie theater for example

[Annoyed]

Easy, it was in the brief you skimmed.
Under a strict constructionist viewpoint of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms would be re-attached to the notion of a militia, instantly removing the -very- loose view pushed by the NRA.
Make sure you screen the militia to include like minded individuals, and away you go.
Or, in other words, see what Womble said.

That's how you read it. And that long winded web page you cited. It's how you interpret it.

I and many others interpret the wording of the 2A as meaning that the need for a milita was the reason for the amendment, but no where does it say membership is required.

[Gatefan1976]

I was pointing out no amendment has limitless power. The government "infringes" on our right s for the welfare of the community. The classic yelling fire in a movie theater for example

Well, yes.
This is the problem with quoting just amendments and using them as the absolute law. You ignore the -mountains- of laws and interpretations that have sprung from their various constitutional basis. Slander and libel laws are example of restricting the absolute power of free speech, whereas something like say, citizens united is an example of adding the freedoms of the individuals to "organizations", even though they are not specifically covered by the 1st amendment.

[Gatefan1976]

That's how you read it. And that long winded web page you cited. It's how you interpret it.

It's not really how -I- interpret it, it is how the standards and usage of grammatical structure was used at the time. Basically, it's passing no judgement of the -content- of the 2nd amendment but clarifying the intent of the language and constructions used in the wording. It's how our language works.

I and many others interpret the wording of the 2A as meaning that the need for a milita was the reason for the amendment, but no where does it say membership is required.

Nowhere does it state you have the right to own "arms" either, does it.
(waits for the excuse that it is "implied"-.......................)

Your interpretation ignores the fact that at the penning of the bill of rights, the federal government was -forbidden- from having a standing army due to the fears of the founders of governmental power being enforced by force of arms. They were aware, however, that the states and the union would need a trained fighting force they could call upon "as needed", hence the militia. Even the argument that the NRA version puts forth that it is to "protect the citizenry from an out of control government" has no basis in the 2nd amendment, but more an interpretation of the possible results of the 1901 laws that -allowed- the federal government to maintain a permanent fighting force and has nothing to do whatsoever with the 2nd amendment.

Basically, your interpretation has no basis in historical fact and ignores the language conventions of the time, it's just "how people want to see it" -now-, and if the judiciary wanted to be strict constitutionalists and constructionists, they could indeed throw your argument out and strip your -perceived- right to have whatever "arms" you want unless you were part of a well regulated militia. Interestingly enough, it would be the erosion of your 1st amendment rights that would make that a lot easier to achieve (re-installing the 1798 alien and sedition laws, for example).

Or, putting it in a shorter form once more, see what Womble said.

[Coco Pops]

"[I]


I would dare to say, they are well on their way, but instead of restricting gun owner-ship, they are expanding. I mean, that one bit about mentally ill people being able to get a gun... Yeah, that's real smart.

That isn't very smart at all.

How is it a good thing that these kind of people who are likely to act out are allowed to own guns?

[mad_gater]

Using that definition, doesn't the very concept of libel and slander infringe the 1st Amendment

The idea is that the freedom to do something must be linked to a purpose. The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once gave a televised talk on freedom with this concept. And in his talk he said that the purpose for having freedom of speech is the communication of truth and knowledge. Libel and slander laws exist because a person has used their freedom of speech in ways not in keeping with that purpose because they're communicating things that simply aren't true about a person.

[garhkal]

Easy, it was in the brief you skimmed.
Under a strict constructionist viewpoint of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms would be re-attached to the notion of a militia, instantly removing the -very- loose view pushed by the NRA.
Make sure you screen the militia to include like minded individuals, and away you go.
Or, in other words, see what Womble said.

But being every able bodied man was PART of a milita back then, how would it 'screen out' people now?