Concerning carrying illegally...

[Feanaro]

CommonSense: "I didn’t say that was the current penalty. I said that I believed that should be the penalty."

And then you said the "penalties should remain the same."

"And all poking fun at silly comments aside, because guns crimes are a major problem today. Get out of bed and listen to the news if you can’t afford a newspaper. That would be my suggestion to you."

I watch the news and read the paper regularly. I still do not see how this would help make the crime lower. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me?

[CommonSense]

Fjolnirsson: Thank you for your thoughts and polite conversation. You stated at the end of your message that you’re done with me. I respect and appreciate your honesty and dedication. Had you of not given up so easily, I would have referred you to several US Supreme Court rulings.

Just a parting thought for you – if the State didn’t have the right to regulate concealed carry, why do you think this is an issue? Wouldn’t this have ended long ago?

I’m glad to hear that you’re at least trying to understand the law. Some people just post without a clue and then don’t research the conversation.

I really do appreciate your thoughts. Please don’t think otherwise. At times I wonder what road we’re heading down because no one seems to be paying attention.

Again, thank you for your thoughts and best wishes!

[S_O_Laban]

First, the Constitution was very loosely written because your forefathers knew things would change.

Where did this Idea come from. I'm not a Contitutional expert. I have read some of the Founding Fathers thoughts about the Constitution but don't recall reading about this idea. Could you offer some sort of documentation for this idea?

[CommonSense]

Wow. S_O_Laban: You’re kidding – right? You don’t know that the 2nd Amendment was an Amendment? I’m not trying to be rude, but could you tell me how old you are?

Feanaro: HUH?!?!

[fjolnirsson]

Just a parting thought for you – if the State didn’t have the right to regulate concealed carry, why do you think this is an issue? Wouldn’t this have ended long ago?

All right, I really was leaving, but I couldn't let this go without reply.
Years ago, people traded liberty for false security, and it has become the status quo. People have grown used to it.
Personally, if government weren't so big, and I thought it would stop there, I could see the sense in some reasonable gun control laws.
Of course, this opens the question of what exactly is reasonalble.
However, history shows that gun control is almost exclusively leathel to the law abiding citizens of those countries enacting said gun control.

That said, I also have enjoyed the conversation.
But I must sleep.

[CommonSense]

Fjolnirsson: Thank you for your thoughts tonight. I believe that the State is wrong as well. Not legally, but definitely morally. I read about kids and poor people getting killed daily and it makes me sick.

Knowledge is the best weapon.

[S_O_Laban]

CommonSense: So your saying that you don't have any supporting documentation to the idea, other than the fact that each section of the bill of rights is called an ammendment?

[CommonSense]

Not at all, S_O_Laman. Are you still asking for me to post what you should have learned in high school? Please do a little homework before asking me to post this. I’m not trying to be rude, but most everyone knows that just because there was an amendment, that doesn’t make it right. Just ask Al Capone! Okay. Cheap shot. But you get the idea.

[Don Gwinn]

Commonsense, for a man who is not trying to be rude, you do an admirable job of it. Please stop.


Now, on to the factual arguments.

1. You refer to the Constitution having been written "loosely" because the founding fathers knew "things would change." This is a common misconception. "Looseness" or vagueness was never intended. The founding fathers did make a concession to the possibility that the world could change so radically as to make the Constitution as written obsolete. That concession was the amendment process. Anyone who is claiming to justify anything other than a lawfully enacted Constitutional amendment by citing the famous "flexibility" of the "living document" is, at best, mistaken. If you want to change the Constitution, you can't do it by changing an interpretation or declaring that this or that sentence now mean something different. You want to change the Constution? Get started on the amendment process.

2. You ask "If states didn't have the right to do such things, why would they be doing them?"
This confuses "rights" with "power." Clearly, the states have the power to do what they're doing. THAT can be proven with the sort of self-evident reasoning you used above. If someone is in fact taking an action, it stands to reason that he must have the power to take that action. The right to take it absolutely does not follow.
States do things they don't have the right to do all the time. My own state has been proven to have railroaded innocent men, in some cases even to death row. It gave illegal contracts to friends of our last four governors. The fact that it did these things does not prove that it had the right to do so--only the power.

3. I don't know why you place so much importance on the fact that the 2nd Amendment is an amendment. Not only does it seem self-evident, as pointed out by others, but in our Constitution there is no difference between "original" passages and amendments. Both have equal force. There's no probation period; once an amendment is adopted, it's part of the Constitution.

[S_O_Laban]

CommonSense: No I guess I don't "get " the idea. You made a statement

First, the Constitution was very loosely written because your forefathers knew things would change.

What I was taught in High School differs quite a bit from the above statement. I simply asked where this idea that the Constitution is, in your words " loosely written because your forefathers knew things would change" comes from? I don't remember reading anything about this ideology from any of the founders.

You made the statement and apparently can't support it. Dimissing my question due to my apparant lack of education only leads me to belive even further that the above statement is your humble opinion and certainaly not fact. Of course should you be able to provide documentation of your statement the debate can continue



Edited by S_O_Laban for clarification.

[Bill St. Clair]

The Second Amendment is indeed an amendment to the Constitution. It is, however, part of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would never have been ratified and we would still be operating under the Articles of Confederation (I can dream, can't I?). The Bill of Rights sets forth basic human rights, rights which may not be legislated out of being. Any law that violates one of them, at the state or federal level, is null and void. Any legislator who proposes or votes for such a law, any cop who enforces it, and any judge who rules in favor of it is a criminal.

There are indeed "gun crimes", though the fact that a gun is the weapon used in such a crime has very little to do with the reason it is a crime. Crime consists of intentionally harming a person or damaging or stealing their property, in person or by proxy or fraud. Period. It is not a crime to possess a tool that could be used to commit a crime. Otherwise, we'd all be criminals all the time for having brains and hands and legs. That a slew of paper non-laws to the contrary have been passed by criminal legislators, enforced by criminal cops, and allowed to stand by criminal judges, does not change this.

I call these legislators, cops, and judges criminal" because the legislators, by making such "laws", conspire to commit assault and kidnapping of peaceful people, the cops actually assault and kidnap those people, and the judges rubber stamp this travesty. False arrest is assault and kidnapping. Kidnapping is a capital offense. Conspiring to commit mass assault and kidnapping is a crime against humanity. Let the trials begin. Let the hangings be public. I'm deadly serious.

[JShirley]

Rape is, by definition, a crime, so it is redundant and silly to speak of "rape crime" or "carjacking crime". It's just rape and carjacking. "Gun violence" is just a pathetic attempt to link a tool with a crime.

Some may argue here, but the states were SUPPOSE to have the final word on laws in their state.

You have some interesting stances, which I am not sure have had sufficient thought. Article 6 of the Constitution states, in part:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

Regardless of what you think was "supposed" (adjective- not "suppose", verb) to be the case, the Constitution clearly states that IT ALONE is "supreme law of the land". Since the states agreed to the Constitution, it follows that the Constitution is the final word.

Amendment 14 clearly states that the privileges protected by the Bill of Rights are individual rights:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United (which have already been demonstrated to be the rights contained in the BOR, not what a state may have defined them to be).

John

[CommonSense]

Commonsense, for a man who is not trying to be rude, you do an admirable job of it. Please stop.

When a moderator posts a message such as this, the conversation is over.

[Art Eatman]

Sobeit.