barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Just remember this -- the Constitution is not a suicide pact"
I'm afraid you're wrong; dead wrong. A government without solid boundaries is assuredly a suicide pact. There's a reason we have a very specific and controlled means of altering the Constitution, and it is specifically to prevent the document from being the proverbial suicide pact. The writers were far more specific about how the document was to be changed than they were about how it was to be interpreted, and this is because it was never intended to be 'interpreted' in the mealy-mouthed parlance of our times. It was passed in the first place for the specific purpose of not being violated while this government persists. Pretending the case to be otherwise is an endorsement of lawlessness.
We are also so divorced from Constitutional principles regarding firearms law at this point that the statement above is further laughable on its face. To be honest, it seems we accumulate more problems and contradictions within our system the more we pretend that 'times have changed' and the old ways are too simple for the perceived complications of our era. Ockham's Razor states the simple solution is probably the correct one, so what does that make the statesmen who build their careers peddling complicated solutions to complex problems?
Now, if the point was that we are too far gone to undergo a rapid transition back to constitutional compliance, I will agree. But politics is different from philosophy, particularly in that politics is based in reality rather than hypotheticals. So please suggest specific measures we should attempt in lieu of these 'radical' constitutional ideals, because you can't expect us or anyone else to compromise on their philosophy. For example, I would suggest we work on repealing the silencer regs before the SBR regs; even though both are 'ripe' for repeal, the silencer debate can be more easily framed in favorable safety/civility terms. We'd just have to defend against those who would make them mandatory.
"There are no mental health exceptions in the Second Amendment. NONE."
We do have the whole 'Due Process' thing in which rights can be removed from citizens, but only through highly controlled and publicly accountable means (that's the theory, anyway). The problem with mental health is it is the new 'degeneracy' when it comes to policy, in that the accused immediately lose their defensible standing by virtue of the accusation; something that is not supposed to be a principle of our system of law. Stalin used the concept to great effect last century (ever wonder why early psychology involved so many Russians?) so don't ever doubt that it can be abused incredibly easily.
"Do not directly reference any amendment as absolute or you lose all credibility"
Once more; then what is the document for? The rule of law is the rule of law. Neither the Bible nor any other document of influence can be referenced as 'absolute' within our system, except the Constitution. That is the entire purpose of the document. Any bend, wrinkle, or distortion of it weakens its legitimacy, and legitimacy is the only thing differentiating our system from Belarus' or Somalia's. The amendments are equally absolute, which is why they ostensibly trump any law until they come into conflict with another portion of the Constitution, where the matter is sorted on a case-by-case basis by the SCOTUS. Again, it can be argued we are quite diverged from this state of affairs, and for a long time already, so arguing against adherence to the document in support of further diverged regulation is something of a straw-man. Saying we should stray further by virtue of our having strayed already is effectively a rejection of the concept of Constitutional government.
Instead you should argue that adhering to the rule of law is too hard, and a legislature with root access to our society would be so much more effective to do good in the world.
TCB
I'm afraid you're wrong; dead wrong. A government without solid boundaries is assuredly a suicide pact. There's a reason we have a very specific and controlled means of altering the Constitution, and it is specifically to prevent the document from being the proverbial suicide pact. The writers were far more specific about how the document was to be changed than they were about how it was to be interpreted, and this is because it was never intended to be 'interpreted' in the mealy-mouthed parlance of our times. It was passed in the first place for the specific purpose of not being violated while this government persists. Pretending the case to be otherwise is an endorsement of lawlessness.
We are also so divorced from Constitutional principles regarding firearms law at this point that the statement above is further laughable on its face. To be honest, it seems we accumulate more problems and contradictions within our system the more we pretend that 'times have changed' and the old ways are too simple for the perceived complications of our era. Ockham's Razor states the simple solution is probably the correct one, so what does that make the statesmen who build their careers peddling complicated solutions to complex problems?
Now, if the point was that we are too far gone to undergo a rapid transition back to constitutional compliance, I will agree. But politics is different from philosophy, particularly in that politics is based in reality rather than hypotheticals. So please suggest specific measures we should attempt in lieu of these 'radical' constitutional ideals, because you can't expect us or anyone else to compromise on their philosophy. For example, I would suggest we work on repealing the silencer regs before the SBR regs; even though both are 'ripe' for repeal, the silencer debate can be more easily framed in favorable safety/civility terms. We'd just have to defend against those who would make them mandatory.
"There are no mental health exceptions in the Second Amendment. NONE."
We do have the whole 'Due Process' thing in which rights can be removed from citizens, but only through highly controlled and publicly accountable means (that's the theory, anyway). The problem with mental health is it is the new 'degeneracy' when it comes to policy, in that the accused immediately lose their defensible standing by virtue of the accusation; something that is not supposed to be a principle of our system of law. Stalin used the concept to great effect last century (ever wonder why early psychology involved so many Russians?) so don't ever doubt that it can be abused incredibly easily.
"Do not directly reference any amendment as absolute or you lose all credibility"
Once more; then what is the document for? The rule of law is the rule of law. Neither the Bible nor any other document of influence can be referenced as 'absolute' within our system, except the Constitution. That is the entire purpose of the document. Any bend, wrinkle, or distortion of it weakens its legitimacy, and legitimacy is the only thing differentiating our system from Belarus' or Somalia's. The amendments are equally absolute, which is why they ostensibly trump any law until they come into conflict with another portion of the Constitution, where the matter is sorted on a case-by-case basis by the SCOTUS. Again, it can be argued we are quite diverged from this state of affairs, and for a long time already, so arguing against adherence to the document in support of further diverged regulation is something of a straw-man. Saying we should stray further by virtue of our having strayed already is effectively a rejection of the concept of Constitutional government.
Instead you should argue that adhering to the rule of law is too hard, and a legislature with root access to our society would be so much more effective to do good in the world.
TCB
