A message to our Leadership in America

[DuncanONeil]

I guess I'm a wingnut. I agree wholeheartedly with just about every single thing in the letter.

We used to be a nation of hard workers that took pride in our own merit. Now we seem to be turning into a nation of people that embrace the idea that we need the government to make us happy; that somehow, they have the magic formula.

Only 50% of workers pay 97% of the income tax!!!

[DuncanONeil]

Interpretation is one thing inference is something else all together. By doing such an "understanding" of the Constitution you are in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment!

You really want to go on record as saying there is no left based politics in the US???

Twisting.

ian ... don't you like being a Scottish colony? Ah well ... now you know how the Scots have felt since 1707. Not nice, is it?

Well, like many other nations, the USA has a two party system, one to the right of the political spectrum, and the other, further to the right. It is not conceivable that either of them can reflect everyone's political viewpoints , in fact, it is not likely that they can reflect anyone's viewpoint exactly. I guess you just have to accept the system is imperfect and your choices are, trying to make changes within the system - by voting for the candidate whose policies you are closest to - or by starting a revolution. As the writer of the above list of policy changes / law amendments presented most of them with the words "I [do not] want ...", I recommend revolution: allowing other people a vote would be too dangerous.

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

[DuncanONeil]

The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

True! But that does not alter the fact that rights are being created by a liberal reading of sections of the document that are not there, because they are not, not there. That violates Amendment Ten.

[DuncanONeil]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

When Sir Edward Grey informed the German Ambassador of the conditions Germany had to accept in order for Britain to stay out of World War One, the German Ambassador replied that "[You] are going to war over a piece of paper."
it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"
It is why a Bill of Rights is a limiting document; it sets out those elements that seem so important today but "in the future some fool will be of the belief that we are seeking to define the limits of freedom."
The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

[DuncanONeil]

If two terms for the President is a good thing why does Congress consistently resist the same thing for themselves?

denu, the ONLY politicians I know of who were not interested in complete power were the founding fathers of our country. Once they served, they went back to their homes/farms and then it was someone else's turn to serve for their country.

Serving as a politician in the United States should carry the same amount of pride for doing it as serving in one of the armed forces. Our government was not originally designed to be full of career positions. People were supposed to step up to the plate, serve for one term, then go back home to life as it was. Politics in the US has become a joke.

We all know politicians say what they think their constituents want to hear in order to get elected. Case in point; Nancy Pelosi laughing and admitting to that very thing!

[DuncanONeil]

Now, where's that cider?[/B]

Just lick your arm!

[Energizer]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

Just present a counterargument and let people decide for themselves.

[Bren122]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

I am not a leftie, Duncan.
"Freedom must be defined in order that it may be grasped."
A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it; the British in WW1 felt strongly about the preservation of the Belgian political entity from its long association with Flanders in general. Germany had no such feelings and thus, despite being a co-signatory of the Brussels Treaty, had no compunction about violating it.
If America did not have an underlying belief in the concepts of equality, liberty and fraternity then the documents themselves would mean nothing. we know this for the US constitution, as important a legal and political milestone as it is, has only worked once. the constitution and the Bill of Rights are meant to be a formalisation of underlying principles; as perspective on those principles has changed, so the documents have been changed, whether by judicial judgement or the ammendments process.
courts, police, parliaments, etc only work when they are allowed to work; if you did not agree with a judgement in a legal case you can easily go into a court room and redress that judgement with a gun. but if everyone does that why have a court system in the first place? similarly the first move in a dictatorship is to ensure the political compliance of the judiciary as an entity. the American system can be biased by political appointments but not to the point of removing opposing judges in order to replace them with your appointees.
The British and Australian (and NZ and Canadian) systems are built on common law and parliament, etc but, really, they are defined by the collective understanding that the alternative is chaos. you don't need a Bill of Rights unless you are trying to impose a certain point of view as being the sole basis of argument; the beauty of the Westminster System is that it can move back and forth between the two opposites and find a middle ground that might not make everyone happy but is a workable solution to diametrically opposed views. if you look at the gun debate in America, which is severely limited by the 2nd Amendment, it promotes extremist positions that ultimately fail to address some of the legitimate concerns that an unlimited gun control policy has allowed to foster. (why does the average citizen NEED a grenade launcher?)

[Bren122]

True! But that does not alter the fact that rights are being created by a liberal reading of sections of the document that are not there, because they are not, not there. That violates Amendment Ten.

And the Right has been just as guilty of the same notions. Equal but Separate, et al are only justifiable by ignoring major sections of the constitution and selectively rendering other sections. it is unlikely that those who drew up the constitution, had they been aware of the changes in weapons technology to come, would approve of the idea that the average citizen be allowed access to ammunition known colloquially as cop-killer bullets. or a grenade launcher or a landmine. The 2nd amendment was inspired by the English notion of militia, which grew out of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not an individual's free for all collection of weapons. the way the Yeomanry of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary periods operated was essentially how the 2nd Amendment was envisaged to operate.

the fact is that there is a strong anti-intellectualism about the modern right that has effectively limited its opposition to these liberal uses of the constitution. too often the opposition to these progressive positions have been defined by the far right in total denial of a need for change. the moderates need to take a cue from the moderate left and stop trying to mollify the extremists on every issue and recapture the idea that being conservative is not the same as being anti-progress.

[Bren122]

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

it's no worse than the common assumption on here that the majority of the right are heartless capitalists, neo-nazis or religious extremists. the truth is that the 'vast majority of the left' would like to see the constitution and the Bill of Rights interpreted more liberally; if Duncan feels that this is a mistaken position why can't he say so in those terms? how exactly is it a demonstration of ignorance? or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

[DuncanONeil]

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

Just present a counterargument and let people decide for themselves.

In the case of the message in question it comes from an observation of actions and comments.

And I do believe that; "The entire Constitution is a limiting document" IS a counter argument!

[DuncanONeil]

I can accept many of the things you say.
But not in reference to the bill of rights being better if the meaning changes from day to day.
Also gun rights in the US are not without limit. Anything resembling an M203 is illegal for private ownership, if functional.

I am not a leftie, Duncan.
"Freedom must be defined in order that it may be grasped."
A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it; the British in WW1 felt strongly about the preservation of the Belgian political entity from its long association with Flanders in general. Germany had no such feelings and thus, despite being a co-signatory of the Brussels Treaty, had no compunction about violating it.
If America did not have an underlying belief in the concepts of equality, liberty and fraternity then the documents themselves would mean nothing. we know this for the US constitution, as important a legal and political milestone as it is, has only worked once. the constitution and the Bill of Rights are meant to be a formalisation of underlying principles; as perspective on those principles has changed, so the documents have been changed, whether by judicial judgement or the ammendments process.
courts, police, parliaments, etc only work when they are allowed to work; if you did not agree with a judgement in a legal case you can easily go into a court room and redress that judgement with a gun. but if everyone does that why have a court system in the first place? similarly the first move in a dictatorship is to ensure the political compliance of the judiciary as an entity. the American system can be biased by political appointments but not to the point of removing opposing judges in order to replace them with your appointees.
The British and Australian (and NZ and Canadian) systems are built on common law and parliament, etc but, really, they are defined by the collective understanding that the alternative is chaos. you don't need a Bill of Rights unless you are trying to impose a certain point of view as being the sole basis of argument; the beauty of the Westminster System is that it can move back and forth between the two opposites and find a middle ground that might not make everyone happy but is a workable solution to diametrically opposed views. if you look at the gun debate in America, which is severely limited by the 2nd Amendment, it promotes extremist positions that ultimately fail to address some of the legitimate concerns that an unlimited gun control policy has allowed to foster. (why does the average citizen NEED a grenade launcher?)

[DuncanONeil]

Look I know that this is a somewhat unique issue to the US. But the right in the Second Amendment does not accrue to militia but to the people. It is clear in that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The purpose of the Amendment is not have an armed militia available for defense of the nation but to provide a means, should it become necessary to defend the nation from the Government.
The left's "progressive" positions are often issues that are completely without the scope of this nations Constitutional role for its Government.

And the Right has been just as guilty of the same notions. Equal but Separate, et al are only justifiable by ignoring major sections of the constitution and selectively rendering other sections. it is unlikely that those who drew up the constitution, had they been aware of the changes in weapons technology to come, would approve of the idea that the average citizen be allowed access to ammunition known colloquially as cop-killer bullets. or a grenade launcher or a landmine. The 2nd amendment was inspired by the English notion of militia, which grew out of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not an individual's free for all collection of weapons. the way the Yeomanry of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary periods operated was essentially how the 2nd Amendment was envisaged to operate.

the fact is that there is a strong anti-intellectualism about the modern right that has effectively limited its opposition to these liberal uses of the constitution. too often the opposition to these progressive positions have been defined by the far right in total denial of a need for change. the moderates need to take a cue from the moderate left and stop trying to mollify the extremists on every issue and recapture the idea that being conservative is not the same as being anti-progress.

[DuncanONeil]

it's no worse than the common assumption on here that the majority of the right are heartless capitalists, neo-nazis or religious extremists. the truth is that the 'vast majority of the left' would like to see the constitution and the Bill of Rights interpreted more liberally; if Duncan feels that this is a mistaken position why can't he say so in those terms? how exactly is it a demonstration of ignorance? or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

"(A)re sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?"
Unfortunately that is often exactly the case. I received a message today from MoveOn railing against Visa, in particular, and credit companies in general for not dropping the processing fees for contributions to Haiti. Completely ignoring that the seklf same companies are making their own donations.

[denuseri]

Its actually; according to the latest Surpreme Court interpetation, for you as a law abiding citizen to have a way to defend your life liberty and or property from harm from any source of contention.

[steelish]

A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it

And therein lies the problem. I think there is plenty of spirit in America to motivate it, unfortunately, the voters haven't been paying much attention for a great many years now and instead of voting based upon principles, many have been voting based upon popularity, or "gee, I've heard of this person but not that one", or even "he's cuter than the other guy". (Yes, I once heard an 18 year old girl say that when she voted for the first time and I wanted to throw up). Many Americans are a bit ignorant when it comes to making a knowledgeable vote, and that stems from the fact that they can't foresee an America other than the one they grew up in. They think it will be as usual...life goes on unchanged. Unfortunately, they are now learning that is not the case, and many Americans are researching, learning, and watching politicians much more closely than they ever have before. Talk of politics used to be practically nonexistent - now it's everywhere; in restaurants, at the workplace, etc. The actions of the current administration has done more to wake up Americans than 9/11 did! For that, I thank them.

The spirit of America is going to show itself at the voting booth this year, for that you can be sure.

[Bren122]

And therein lies the problem. I think there is plenty of spirit in America to motivate it, unfortunately, the voters haven't been paying much attention for a great many years now and instead of voting based upon principles, many have been voting based upon popularity, or "gee, I've heard of this person but not that one", or even "he's cuter than the other guy". (Yes, I once heard an 18 year old girl say that when she voted for the first time and I wanted to throw up). Many Americans are a bit ignorant when it comes to making a knowledgeable vote, and that stems from the fact that they can't foresee an America other than the one they grew up in. They think it will be as usual...life goes on unchanged. Unfortunately, they are now learning that is not the case, and many Americans are researching, learning, and watching politicians much more closely than they ever have before. Talk of politics used to be practically nonexistent - now it's everywhere; in restaurants, at the workplace, etc. The actions of the current administration has done more to wake up Americans than 9/11 did! For that, I thank them.

The spirit of America is going to show itself at the voting booth this year, for that you can be sure.

The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.

[steelish]

The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.

But it's not about "changing the world". At least, it isn't for me. I cannot change Iraq and their beliefs...I cannot change the bitter relationships that exist within Ireland...I cannot change Israel. The only thing, we, as Americans can do is try to set an example to the rest of the world by continuing to be a free nation with a big heart. To do this we need to preserve our freedoms, and to me, we are on our way to losing a great many of them.

[Bren122]

The second Amendment reads;
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 is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

[Bren122]

But it's not about "changing the world". At least, it isn't for me. I cannot change Iraq and their beliefs...I cannot change the bitter relationships that exist within Ireland...I cannot change Israel. The only thing, we, as Americans can do is try to set an example to the rest of the world by continuing to be a free nation with a big heart. To do this we need to preserve our freedoms, and to me, we are on our way to losing a great many of them.

That was a lack of concision on my part; i should have said changing your personal world or something equally hippy.
the fact is that the US has changed Iraq and for the better. yes, there is a chance it can all fall over but it has always been harder to build than to destroy. the mainstream media is concentrating on the things that can go wrong because it has made horrible predictions of failure since before the invasion started. it is facing an unprecedented challenge to its power of opinion and the last thing it needs is to be shown to be totally out of touch on such key issues as Iraq and Afghanistan. find the right journals and sites and you will see, in their own words, how Iraqis and Afghanis have come to embrace these opportunities they have been given. 80% of Aghanis support the American-led presence- not forever but until they are sure the Taliban won't be back. that is from a BBC poll that the BBC has never published- there was a similar poll in Iraq in 2008 that found more or less the same level of support at the time that the BBC was saying that most Iraqis wanted the Americans out- in fact they wanted the fighting units to leave only after the insurgency was beaten- and only if Iran was not a threat.
you seem to think these younger generations are only repeating what they are told on the news, but they have the ability to speak directly with the Iraqis and Afghans and others that was not available even five years ago- the mainstream media is attacking twitter and youtube and myspace type sights because the truth is getting out and they can't control the story anymore. seeing they are being lied to about the wars they are looking more closely to things closer to home. their world, and their perception of that world, has changed.

[steelish]

The second Amendment reads;
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 is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

Actually no. Thomas Jefferson stated "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Just because the Second Amendment happens to have a preamble doesn't diminish the fact that the granting of this right to the people is perfectly clear. When our Founders intended to specifically refer to the militia or the states, they used those words. Look at the Tenth Amendment, for instance: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It becomes even more clear when you look at other instances where the Founders used the language "the right of the people." Like in the First Amendment, for example: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Or, in the Fourth Amendment: "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well-regulated militia, is a reason why the people have a right to arms. It's a perfectly good and sufficient reason, but it't not the only reason, and it doesn't change who has the right.

Consider this sentence:

"Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat"

Does that mean that Joe should buy a boat only if he fishes for a living? What if Joe also likes to water ski? Being a fisherman is a great reason for getting a boat, but it isn't the only reason and, in fact, it doesn't even have to be true.

Likewise, the militia clause of the Second Amendment doesn't have to be true for the rest of the amendment to stand. What if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state? We are pretty secure and still (kind of) free these days, but we don't have a functioning state-militia system. Perhaps the Founders were wrong – maybe the only thing necessary to security is a nuclear-defense umbrella, a strong navy, and just plain good luck.

Does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its percieved benefits no longer exists? Of course not – no individual right depends on the government's actions. That's why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were "endowed with by our creator" instead of some elected bureaucrat.

[Bren122]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.
the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.
the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

[steelish]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.

No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces?

the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.

It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America.

now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.

You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America.

the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society.

Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood!

just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?

You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons.

i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

And I never thought you were arguing against the right, just pointing out that your interpretation of the Second Amendment was off.

[steelish]

The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

Wrong. You know why the Constitution will never be obsolete? Because it is about providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

[MMI]

I am in no doubt the British authorities allow [ethnic tribunals] to be set up within those communities. But they have no legal standing in the UK, and all findings must be presented to a British court to have the final say.

Of course they have no legal standing per se, but if both parties have agreed to be bound by the tribunal's decision, the courts will not disturb it. Approval by the courts is unnecessary.

I would like to point out that it has not stopped honour killings

It woudn't, would it? The tribunals do not order honour killings where they feel a girl has disgraced her family. And I would suggest that in the countries where honour killings are accepted by custom, they are still illegal in the countries of origin.

The UK is a very racially tolerant country ...

Then let us not fall into the trap of believing racist propaganda purveyed by the nazi parties on the right, or swallowing tall stories spread in pub arguments by readers of the gutter press. Let us live up to our honourable and noble reputation of providing a safe haven for people of all persuasions and colours; and let us also live up to our promises to the people whose national histories are so closely linked to ours, and who made this country as great as it once was by treating them like real people - like the British citizens they are or aspire to be.

... Sharia Law has no minimum, what is said is done and sometimes to the extreme, it has no place in the civilised world.

Islamic law constitutes the third most influential legal system in the world, after Civil Law and Common Law. What do you mean, it has no place in the civilised world?

Sharia encompasses much more than a legal system, but all aspects of moslem life, including economic matters, family matters, politics and so on and it is founded on justice and faith, not hate, power and bloodlust. OK, some of the penalties seem harsh, but how far removed are they from our own punioshments? When did we abandon judicial torture ... the USA practiced it under the previous regime. What about the death penalty? The USA still practices that. What about amputations? Well, England practiced dismemberment in mediaeval times for certain crimes. There's no getting away with it: Western law was once as cruel as Sharia law can be.

Now look at the countries where Sharia law is praccticed in its strictest forms. Can you see any resemblence to the underdeveloped nations of Europe in centuries past?

The crimes are different maybe, but that's due to different societies having different moral values. Who's to say which is the better these days?

... or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

Works for me ...

... [the American Constitution] ... was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

But, of course, the Constitution can be changed, or even erased, if enough Americans will it. The list of amendments already enacted demonsrate this, and denying it is futile

[Lion]

A mod is free to put this post on a new thread since it really has nothing to do with the discussion. I just want to clarify a common misconception

It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.

I get what your point is here, and agree with it. The only thing I disagree with is the term "Jihad Believers".

Jihad Believers, Jihadists, etc are terms that people have tossed around in the last 10 years without really knowing what it means. The literal translation is Struggle. In a nutshell, protecting the faith of Islam. Be it from within or external.

The faith of Islam is different then what these monsters claim to believe in. As a Muslim, they have no real association with my faith, and have stolen words to brainwash others around them, words like Jihad. I hate all "Jihad" terms used to describe a terrorist, because 1) it becomes okay for the general public to use the word as a negative word, when for me, it holds an important meaning, and 2) it strengthens the resolve of people who are labelled as "Jihadists" or "Jihadist believers", by using that term a lot, you are in essense telling Muslims around the world that either you believe Jihad is part of your faith, and you are with them, or Jihad is evil, and you are with us.

Jihad on occasion, does incorporate fighting for Islam, when Islam is threatened, when it's followers are threatened. It does in no way mean killing the innocent, and you won't find that anywhere.



Sorry for the interruption, everyone can go on with the discussion

[Bren122]

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.

and both sides say that before every election.
all governments fear the people; that is precisely the problem. rather than doing what is right, too often they do what is popular. that's why your budget is pushing a deficit of $2trillion. we increasingly measure the concern of a government on an issue by how much it spends and not on how much it actually helps.

No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces?

where a regime/ government maintains the support of the army it maintains its hold on power. name one revolution that has succeeded where the army has stood by the government.
What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States? why did it fail- because the army remained true to the union.

It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America.

the success of British/English colonised societies relies on a common written language and the belief in the rule of law. Canada, New Zealand and Australia do not have the 'right to bare arms' and have done as well in building societies. any reading of the history of the early US makes it clear that the founding fathers feared one thing above all- a military dictatorship based on a standing army. it was why so many of them were opposed to Washington being the first president. disbanding the continental army and establishing the militia was the primary goal of the second amendment at that time.

You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America.

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood!

Well i could have used the old lefty ploy and made political mileage out of the frequent rampage shootings in America but i thought that it would be self evident that the ability to do so was more aptly made with the example cited.

You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons.

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

[Bren122]

Wrong. You know why the Constitution will never be obsolete? Because it is about providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?
once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

[Bren122]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren122
... or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?
MMI says
Works for me ...

LOL.........

[steelish]

What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States?

The South was not attempting to take over the U.S.