Do you disagree that many interpreted the amendment very differently? Even those on the SC interpreted it differently, a 5-4 majority opinion may end this phase of the debate, but there were very smart constitutional scholars on both sides who both agreed and disagreed with you.
Well, I'm not debating with those scholars right now though...I'm debating with you :)
First Amendment: "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,..." Who are "the people"?
Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," Who are "the people" ?
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Who are "the people"?
Tenth 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." Again, who are "the people"? And specifically, are "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments different than "the people" in the second? If so, why?
As in a repeals amendment? If so, I wonder how well you'd react to a repeal amendment specifically denying the people the right to marry someone of the same sex? Or how about a repeal amendment denying the people the right to abort a fetus?
More than twice (close to 3x) the number that died on 9/11 die EVERY YEAR because of hand guns in or country. More people die in the US because of handguns than US military died in Iraq over the past 5 years. Too many. More guns will = more deaths.
I've got no dog in this fight - I just pointed out that your interpretation was not the only one, and many quite intelligent people who passionately care about the topic disagreed with you. Your position won in a closely split decision. but it was not the only well-reasoned one.
Personally, I think the amendment was poorly worded and open to different meanings, which is perhaps why you left out the beginning of the amendment when you were supporting your point to TryingtoQuit.
"I don't like people's lives being taken. I abhor violence."
Well, um...correct me if I'm wrong, but there ARE laws on the books regarding murder and violence. No need to take away Laura's gun in order to uphold the laws on the books that aren't in violation of the Constitution.
"Not sure why that has anything to do with being a liberal or a conservative."
I didn't say being opposed to violence was a liberal or conservative thing. I believe I said something along the lines of repealing rights within the constitution was in opposition to liberal beliefs, and frankly, conservatives too...but you're the one willing to take away the people's right to bear arms, so I asked (and you didn't answer) what other rights you'd be willing to repeal. I guess it's just the gun thing, right?
" More guns will = more deaths."
Wow, that sound bite is about as effective as "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Have anything better?
"Personally, I think the amendment was poorly worded and open to different meanings, which is perhaps why you left out the beginning of the amendment when you were supporting your point to TryingtoQuit."
Not at all, not at all! Notice in my response to you (which you didn't exactly address, just said, "I've got no dog in this fight") I brought up the point of the Militia vs. The People. No, the reason I "left that out" is because the part I was focusing on IS the right of the people. Pretty simple really.
You also have to understand that I used to be on the other side of this debate :)
Pages
"BTW - the court has finally interpreted, so its time to move on."
You are right. Apparently the court agrees with me that "the people" means "the people" ;)
I think the liberal judges make their own laws
First Amendment: "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,..." Who are "the people"?
Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," Who are "the people" ?
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Who are "the people"?
Tenth 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." Again, who are "the people"? And specifically, are "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments different than "the people" in the second? If so, why?
"BTW - the court has finally interpreted, so its time to move on."
Yup, time to work for another Amendment.
"Yup, time to work for another Amendment."
As in a repeals amendment? If so, I wonder how well you'd react to a repeal amendment specifically denying the people the right to marry someone of the same sex? Or how about a repeal amendment denying the people the right to abort a fetus?
I thought libs didn't like taking away rights???
I don't like people's lives being taken. I abhor violence. Not sure why that has anything to do with being a liberal or a conservative.
If you want to read up on the cost of having hand guns in the US read this. http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/forum/docs/sept04lemaire.pdf
More than twice (close to 3x) the number that died on 9/11 die EVERY YEAR because of hand guns in or country. More people die in the US because of handguns than US military died in Iraq over the past 5 years. Too many. More guns will = more deaths.
Edited 6/26/2008 5:37 pm ET by tryingtoquit
I've got no dog in this fight - I just pointed out that your interpretation was not the only one, and many quite intelligent people who passionately care about the topic disagreed with you. Your position won in a closely split decision. but it was not the only well-reasoned one.
Personally, I think the amendment was poorly worded and open to different meanings, which is perhaps why you left out the beginning of the amendment when you were supporting your point to TryingtoQuit.
"I don't like people's lives being taken. I abhor violence."
Well, um...correct me if I'm wrong, but there ARE laws on the books regarding murder and violence. No need to take away Laura's gun in order to uphold the laws on the books that aren't in violation of the Constitution.
"Not sure why that has anything to do with being a liberal or a conservative."
I didn't say being opposed to violence was a liberal or conservative thing. I believe I said something along the lines of repealing rights within the constitution was in opposition to liberal beliefs, and frankly, conservatives too...but you're the one willing to take away the people's right to bear arms, so I asked (and you didn't answer) what other rights you'd be willing to repeal. I guess it's just the gun thing, right?
" More guns will = more deaths."
Wow, that sound bite is about as effective as "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Have anything better?
"Personally, I think the amendment was poorly worded and open to different meanings, which is perhaps why you left out the beginning of the amendment when you were supporting your point to TryingtoQuit."
Not at all, not at all! Notice in my response to you (which you didn't exactly address, just said, "I've got no dog in this fight") I brought up the point of the Militia vs. The People. No, the reason I "left that out" is because the part I was focusing on IS the right of the people. Pretty simple really.
You also have to understand that I used to be on the other side of this debate :)
Pages