The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

I have a simple question to all people here. Do you believe, in any way, shape, or form, that the Bill of Rights was intended to grant any form of regulatory power to the federal government?

I've often wondered about people taking things out of context and completely changing the intended meaning of one amendment in particular. When you read the preamble (statement of purpose, in case you didn't know) I think it becomes rather clear. The Bill of Rights was about further restricting the government and granted them no additional powers.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. The entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was about clearly defining and limiting the power of government. This is most clearly shown in the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The founding fathers of the U.S. were (quite properly) very fearful of any government, even the one they were creating, and took care to ensure that power remained as close to the people as possible.

[SoulReaver]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

carefully worded to allow a lot of leeway at the local level - in fact anything between a direct democracy & a police state

[Annoyed]

carefully worded to allow a lot of leeway at the local level - in fact anything between a direct democracy & a police state

Exactly. Their belief was that government which is closest to the people was best. A local government is far more responsive to the wishes of its citizens than a large national govt. is.

[SoulReaver]

Exactly. Their belief was that government which is closest to the people was best. A local government is far more responsive to the wishes of its citizens than a large national govt. is.

yyup. assuming it cares about those wishes
a government "close" to the people is a double-edged sword & citizens should realize that lest they find themselves staring down the barrel of a police shotgun - one at very close range :|

[Annoyed]

yyup. assuming it cares about those wishes
a government "close" to the people is a double-edged sword & citizens should realize that lest they find themselves staring down the barrel of a police shotgun - one at very close range :|

Hence, the 2nd amendment. The framers of the Constitution wanted the citizens to be armed for just that possibility.

[SoulReaver]

Hence, the 2nd amendment.

and yet even that one's too ambiguous

[Annoyed]

and yet even that one's too ambiguous

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.

I don't think that's ambiguous at all. On the contrary, its as clear as a bell. That only thing about it that is confusing is how anti-gun folks can read it any other way.

This is the broken record I keep repeating, over and over. Our government continually ignores the Constitution whenever it is convenient to them or their agenda. Of course the government doesn't want an armed citizenry, might prove to be a problem should said government step out of line. The authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were careful to save that last option for the citizens. Pity that it has been watered down so badly over the years.

[SoulReaver]

I don't think that's ambiguous at all. On the contrary, its as clear as a bell. That only thing about it that is confusing is how anti-gun folks can read it any other way.

This is the broken record I keep repeating, over and over. Our government continually ignores the Constitution whenever it is convenient to them or their agenda. Of course the government doesn't want an armed citizenry, might prove to be a problem should said government step out of line. The authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were careful to save that last option for the citizens. Pity that it has been watered down so badly over the years.

actually it can & should be read any other way by any folks who value - or claim to value - their personal freedoms. if not then you better put that record on auto-repeat

the part you quoted's as clear as a bell alrite - it's the other part that stifles the bell (I reckon you knew that instinctively, since you left it out), lemme quote it:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

see this is the confusing part - assuming the founding fathers cared so much about civil liberties, and assuming they wanted to avoid ambiguity, why the **** did these #$%$ (self-censored) have to add that first part?
why not simply keep the last part? this way neither the letter nor the spirit of the law could never be tampered with but nope, they couldn't keep their claptrap shut so they had to add some extra drivel to it, almost like they wanted to allow the possibility for future governments to mess with it

[Womble]

The part that I, as a non-American, do not understand is why whole arguments have to hinge on what a bunch of 18th century guys did or did not mean once upon a time.

[Annoyed]

actually it can & should be read any other way by any folks who value - or claim to value - their personal freedoms. if not then you better put that record on auto-repeat

the part you quoted's as clear as a bell alrite - it's the other part that stifles the bell (I reckon you knew that instinctively, since you left it out), lemme quote it:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

see this is the confusing part - assuming the founding fathers cared so much about civil liberties, and assuming they wanted to avoid ambiguity, why the **** did these #$%$ (self-censored) have to add that first part?
why not simply keep the last part? this way neither the letter nor the spirit of the law could never be tampered with but nope, they couldn't keep their claptrap shut so they had to add some extra drivel to it, almost like they wanted to allow the possibility for future governments to mess with it

"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 seems clear to me. The first part of the sentence is justification given for the rule, and the second part of the sentence is the rule itself.

Sort of like saying "Since it began raining, I turned the windshield wipers on".

It does not specify that that is the only reason, either. But it does clearly state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Annoyed]

The part that I, as a non-American, do not understand is why whole arguments have to hinge on what a bunch of 18th century guys did or did not mean once upon a time.

Because what those 18th century guys wrote is the legal "rule book" of how the country is to be run, and defines the powers, responsibilities and authority of our government. Even more importantly, it defines limits upon that government.

[SoulReaver]

It seems clear to me. The first part of the sentence is justification given for the rule, and the second part of the sentence is the rule itself.

Sort of like saying "Since it began raining, I turned the windshield wipers on".

It does not specify that that is the only reason, either. But it does clearly state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

and that's where it hurts ^^ It does not specify that that is the only reason but It does not specify that that is not the only reason either - else why would they feel the need to add the 1st part? for the sake of rhetoric? for the sake of making things complicated?

Spoiler:

if so why didn't they do something similar for the 1st amendment? add a preamble such as "because people like to be able to say what they want, 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"

and while we're at it what about more common laws for instance against theft & murder

"stealing things from people is just wrong, therefore theft is punishable by law"

"killing people without their consent is not a good thing to do & will cause lots of grievance to families of the victim, therefore murder shall be punishable by law"

gonna be plenty of laws to rewrite for the sake of justification :/

which means the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment hinges on the 1st part. from there it ain't hard to exploit flaws in the wording
blame the anti gun folks if you want but they're not the only ones you should blame

[Annoyed]

One other thought regarding the 2nd amendment and gun control.

In general, the people who favor blocking or restricting the rights of individuals to own and bear arms are also the people who favor a large, all-powerful government, while those who favor private gun ownership believe in a limited government.

That alone tells me which side of the fence I want to sit on.

[Annoyed]

Regarding the debate over the Indiana/Arkansas laws that protect a religious person from being forced to perform services that violate their religious beliefs, one of the possible GOP candidates for 2016, Rick Santorum, raised a good hypothetical question for those who oppose these laws.

Santorum argued that wedding planners should not be forced to serve same-sex couples because “tolerance is a two-way street.”

“If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up?” he asked. “Should the government — and this is really the case here — should the government force you to do that?”

My question is if you say that the government should force a church or other business to perform services they object to on the basis of their beliefs, shouldn't the government also force this hypothetical print shop owner to print signs which are contrary to his beliefs?

My answer is of course not. Just as the church, bakery or whatever should not be forced to participate in something that they oppose, neither should this print shop be forced to print signs which would be offensive to him. In both cases, the buyer should simply go to another vendor who will do the work.

[SoulReaver]

One other thought regarding the 2nd amendment and gun control.

In general, the people who favor blocking or restricting the rights of individuals to own and bear arms are also the people who favor a large, all-powerful government, while those who favor private gun ownership believe in a limited government.

That alone tells me which side of the fence I want to sit on.

that's strange cause the neocons (claim to) support the 2nd amendment yet they also want a huge, near-omnipresent government

case in point, check out the news on Cecil Clayton the brain-damaged bloke who was executed in Missouri despite his handicap (he'd shot a copper during one of his fits) - it's the neocons who wanted him executed, then referred to the man's defenders as "liberal* anti-cop anarchists" & what not

and while you're at it check out all the info on John Howard, far-right-wing former australian PM and fascist POS
turns out he's also the one who had all private guns banned


* nb. to non-american readers: in the US 'liberal' means 'left-wing' unlike in the normal rest of the world