Pepper Spray for teachers???

[cdmech]

Several things said here are incorrect:

Originally Posted by Olle

The Second Amendment, read by the letter, gives mentally defective, criminals and maybe even children the same right to bear arms

The second amendment does not give us a right. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The second amendment is a law which protects that right.

Originally Posted by Olle

The question is what we can do and still be reasonably close to what the founding fathers put on paper.

Reasonably is subjective. The founding fathers believed our rights were ABSOLUTE.

Originally Posted by Douglas Jr.

However, stick to the 2nd Amendment as godspel will not allow you to hold this pósition forever. I'm afraid that, legaly speaking, an Amendment is... an amendment, it can be revoked or modified if the proper proceeding is taken by the Congress, as had happened before. It is only a matter of politics, popular support and lobby.

The second amendment is in the BILL OF RIGHTS. Rights cannot be revoked or modified. You opinion that rights are a matter of politics, popular support and lobby decribes the forms of government in most every other nation. But not America.

Originally Posted by Olle

You can't protect the 2nd Amendment by stubbornly clinging on to it as an eternal truth, because it isn't.

"endowed by their creator" is an eternal truth.

Marc

[ithacaartist]

Several things said here are incorrect:

I agree.

The second amendment does not give us a right. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The second amendment is a law which protects that right.

Your quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The second amendment is not a law, but a change(amendment) to the Constitution, along with nine others ratified by congress and the state legislatures. The first two amendments, of 12 in the original bill, were not ratified. Virginian George Mason (of the Mason-Dixon Line) was most vocal about this so-called bill of rights. I'm glad he mostly got his way

Reasonably is subjective. The founding fathers believed our rights were ABSOLUTE.

Reasonable might be subjective--to the unreasonable... It implies that a concept is examined in the light of logic and reason, NOT emotion. This process can be quite objective. To insist that the founding fathers crafted the perfect constitution is negated by the fact that there have been many amendments since. I think they did, however, do a pretty good job setting up a framework that could flex with time, circumstances, and reality. On the other hand, dogma tends to be chiseled in stone, its tenets deemed absolute by its followers.

The second amendment is in the BILL OF RIGHTS. Rights cannot be revoked or modified. You opinion that rights are a matter of politics, popular support and lobby decribes the forms of government in most every other nation. But not America.

Incorrect. The first ten amendments, like all the rest, may be changed by the amendment process set out in the Constitution--2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states' legislatures. Seems the founding fathers considered it a bad thing to force succeeding generations to live by the rules of their forebears, no matter how inappropriate they may be deemed to be. I think you may be confusing our Constitution with the bible or koran, or the North Korean "constitution".

"endowed by their creator" is an eternal truth.

Or it may be theistic gibberish. My mother and father were joint participants in my creation, so I guess I'm lucky enough to have two! Some of the founding fathers were deists, at most. Check out the bible, as Thomas Jefferson re-wrote it. Read a little bit of "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, etc. You'll be amazed at how secular these guys were. The first amendment, for example, protects citizens of all beliefs and dis-beliefs, leaving us all to believe what we wish, or not, without fear of persecution.

David Parker

[Olle]

Originally Posted by cdmech

Several things said here are incorrect:.......

I'm sure that someone more educated than me can pick it apart, after all I'm an engineer and not a lawyer so I'm looking at it from a layman's practical view, rather than analyzing exactly how and where the text is written. Anyway, the bottom line is that you seem to think that nothing can change the constitution, while I believe that there is a chance for it to happen.

What I'm looking at is that there have been several amendments to the constitution (one as late as 1992), so it can obviously be done. You can also look at the 18th and the 21st Amendments, it has been a while but they show how fickle politicians can tinker with the constitution. So my question is if there is a way for everybody to agree on how the 2nd Amendment should be applied to a 21th century society. There is obviously a great disagreement between the pro-gun and anti-gun politicians, and I believe the truth is somewhere inbetween.

Originally Posted by cdmech

You opinion that rights are a matter of politics, popular support and lobby decribes the forms of government in most every other nation. But not America.

From a strictly legal standpoint, that may be true. But once again, the amendments show that changes in society have also changed the interpretation of the original constitution. You can call it popular opinion, politics, lobby or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that it can happen.

[cdmech]

Originally Posted by Olle

I'm sure that someone more educated than me can pick it apart, after all I'm an engineer and not a lawyer so I'm looking at it from a layman's practical view

One last thing I would like to add is that our founding documents are written in plain english so that anyone of simple mind can understand his freedoms. It takes a lawyer and the educated to confuse them.

Marc

[Olle]

Originally Posted by cdmech

One last thing I would like to add is that our founding documents are written in plain english so that anyone of simple mind can understand his freedoms. It takes a lawyer and the educated to confuse them.

Marc

That is true, the problem is that the lawyers and the (supposedly) educated are the ones who have the power to change things. The power is only indirectly with the people, once politicians are voted in they will go their own merry way regardless.

I hope you don't confuse my ideas with those of the lawmakers, what I'm saying is that there is a good chance that they, and not us will come up with new laws. I can see changes coming, and if we approach it with an open mind we can at least steer it in a better direction than assault weapons bans, gun registration and other things we absolutely don't want. If they know that you're not willing to negotiate, they won't invite you to the negotiation.

[cdmech]

Originally Posted by Olle

I hope you don't confuse my ideas with those of the lawmakers, what I'm saying is that there is a good chance that they, and not us will come up with new laws. I can see changes coming, and if we approach it with an open mind we can at least steer it in a better direction than assault weapons bans, gun registration and other things we absolutely don't want. If they know that you're not willing to negotiate, they won't invite you to the negotiation.

I hope you don't think I'm just picking apart your every post, because rereading this thread I'm afraid that's exactly what I've done.. Actually you've just forced me to refine my own thoughts.
As far as being "invited to the negotiations", therein is allot of what is wrong with the politicians. Our basic rights are not given to us by man, therefore man cannot rightly take them away. It is non-negotiable. That is why we are not subjects.

Marc

[Olle]

Originally Posted by cdmech

I hope you don't think I'm just picking apart your every post, because rereading this thread I'm afraid that's exactly what I've done.. Actually you've just forced me to refine my own thoughts.
As far as being "invited to the negotiations", therein is allot of what is wrong with the politicians. Our basic rights are not given to us by man, therefore man cannot rightly take them away. It is non-negotiable. That is why we are not subjects.

Marc

Marc,

No problem, I just wanted to be sure that you understand that I'm not an advocate for more restrictions. I fully understand and actually agree with most of your points, I'm just looking at it from a different perspective. I guess I have just resigned to the fact that attitudes, culture, politics are constantly changing. Sometimes they will evolve into something better, sometimes they won't, but you can be damn sure that they will evolve somehow. I don't always like it, but it's happening anyway and I can't do very much more than to try and turn it in a direction that's in my favor.