I thought this was the new Democratic Underground!

[dave]

Originally posted by dd-b
Imagine if the first amendment didn't apply to any technology other than assembly in person and the printing press. Wouldn't mean much, would it?

I like some of your post sir, but isn't that the very arguement used by those who say the 2nd Admendment is out dated and of no use to "modern" man?

I, by no means, think the Constitution is a "dead" document, but I do believe we should give a great deal of thought to what the framers intended when writting it. Just as the 1st isn't, and shouldn't be, diminnished by the advent of technology and "progress", neither should the the 2nd. Yet that is the very reason some give for wanting it dismissed or redefining it's meaning.

 

[Oleg Volk]

dd-b is the sysadmin of my personal web sites. He is also the guy who got me into gun ownership. A few years ago, I helped him move and teased him about the weight of two cases of ammo. More recently, he helped me move and teased me about the weight of twenty cases of ammo.

I can get along well with his version of liberal thought...bordering on libertarian much of the time. It is my hope that this forum becomes a home for folks from all political corners...united in the eventual realization that not treading on the rights of others is a good start.

 

[dave]

Originally posted by Oleg Volk
dd-b is the sysadmin of my personal web sites. He is also the guy who got me into gun ownership. A few years ago, I helped him move and teased him about the weight of two cases of ammo. More recently, he helped me move and teased me about the weight of twenty cases of ammo.

I can get along well with his version of liberal thought...bordering on libertarian much of the time. It is my hope that this forum becomes a home for folks from all political corners...united in the eventual realization that not treading on the rights of others is a good start.

Well said.

 

[provalov]

Originally posted by Rangerover
Hmmmm...what is the definition of "absolute redneck"?

I suggest you turn to one of America's current favorite sons for a full definition. Alan Jackson has a song called: "It's alright to be a redneck." Great fun, and gives examples of the simple virtues of redneck life. At the risk of perpetuating stereo-types, my favorite line is: "It's alright to be a redneck, it's alright to have a girl named Thelma Lou, who doesn't mind a little kiss when you've got a little chew."

 

[MitchSchaft]

And the really great thing is that it's thehighroad.ORG , not .COM .

Why is that good? Just curious.

 

[Rangerover]

I'm a little rusty on internet lingo I guess, but, what exactly is a "troll" (besides the guy that hangs out under bridges stealing the "gruffs" from billie-goats, etc.)?

Seriously. I guess I'm stupid, but, how does one know if one is being a "troll" or not? I tried to find it on google, but all it said was something about perverts trying to hook up with little girls and such.

They seem to have a bad reputation (nearly as bad as Mall Ninjas!), so I want to avoid it at all costs, but how will I know what to avoid if I don't know what it is?

 

[Schuey2002]

Rangerover,

Here is an example for you.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=140651&highlight=guns

 

[Rangerover]

OOOhhhhh! I see, I see! That was HILARIOUS! It all makes sense, now! Thanx!

 

[Janitor]

Re: Re: I thought this was the new Democratic Underground!

Originally posted by dd-b
*snip*
One of the problems that the firearms lobby has, politically, is that too many firearms supporters assume that support for firearms rights comes only as part of a package including lots of other political beliefs. By speaking and behaving as if this is true, they tend to make it true, by alienating people who do or might support firearms but don't support the other beliefs.

Let's not let that divisive assumption become the norm here!

Here, here dd-b. Very well said.

/randy

 

[2nd Amendment]

One of the reasons people see 2A support coming as a package deal is because it fits in much better with the general individualist, personal responsibility mind-set of Conservatism than with the collective, group-think ideology of the Left. That's a big part of the reason so few on the left of the spectrum have anything but contempt for the 2A, as well as property rights in general.

Because one views the BoR and Constitution as being above simplistic change doesn't mean one views them as 'dead". they are pertinent to our lives and freedom and so very much alive. they are not, however, what the likes of Goron and Ms Klinton call "living documents". Your analogy of the 1A isn't accurate because nobody has ever sought to change it to mean a limitation to only assembly or hand presses. The meaning is apparent in the original text without any need for a "living' aspect. The living document tripe shows up when they want to creat restrictions on the 2A, or find excuses for political goals like "Separation of Church and State or "Rights to privacy".

btw, Charlie, I've now counted the total number of all lines from all my posts and they total more than the number of lines in my sig repeated each time, so it's OK, you can turn your sigs back on.

 

[Blackhawk]

One of the problems that the firearms lobby has, politically, is that too many firearms supporters assume that support for firearms rights comes only as part of a package including lots of other political beliefs. By speaking and behaving as if this is true, they tend to make it true, by alienating people who do or might support firearms but don't support the other beliefs.

True.

That's the same problem guys have when they get married. They just wanted the girl and got the whole family. Same problem for the girls.

Same way, and more on point, with the Libertarian Party as well as the Republicrats and Demolicans. They all come with the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.

 

[dd-b]

Originally posted by dave
I like some of your post sir, but isn't that the very arguement used by those who say the 2nd Admendment is out dated and of no use to "modern" man?

I, by no means, think the Constitution is a "dead" document, but I do believe we should give a great deal of thought to what the framers intended when writting it. Just as the 1st isn't, and shouldn't be, diminnished by the advent of technology and "progress", neither should the the 2nd. Yet that is the very reason some give for wanting it dismissed or redefining it's meaning.

The fact remains that if the constitution meant only and precisely what the signers thought it meant, it wouldn't cover all sorts of important things. That's simply not a workable position. Besides that, I believe we could prove that the signers already disagreed on what some things meant, and other things we couldn't find conslusive evidence of exactly what they meant. Any way you look at it, constitutional literalism is unworkable.

People will, of course, attempt to use any argument they can find to further their aims. I'm not prepared to abandon every useful idea every time somebody finds a way to make an argument I don't like with it. I'll only abandon them in the face of mounds of evidence and a good deal of thought.

In the case of the second amendment, I see the situation as simple in some ways and complex in others. It's nonsense to suggest that the 2A was only meant to protect muzzle-loading weapons, for example.

I think that, indeed, what a judge should do is give considerable thought to what was intended, and then follow up on that intention even if they don't like it. If significant changes are needed, that should be left to the mechanism outlined in the constitution. I understand how it's rarely possible for people with strong opinions, trained in finding strange arguments to support the conclusions they favor, to hold themselves back when they see a chance to do a good deed for the country, though.

 

[dd-b]

Originally posted by 2nd Amendment


Because one views the BoR and Constitution as being above simplistic change doesn't mean one views them as 'dead". they are pertinent to our lives and freedom and so very much alive. they are not, however, what the likes of Goron and Ms Klinton call "living documents". Your analogy of the 1A isn't accurate because nobody has ever sought to change it to mean a limitation to only assembly or hand presses. The meaning is apparent in the original text without any need for a "living' aspect. The living document tripe shows up when they want to creat restrictions on the 2A, or find excuses for political goals like "Separation of Church and State or "Rights to privacy".

The text of the 1st Amendment specifically refers to freedom of the press. Interpreting that to refer to broadcasting on the radio is exactly the sort of progressive reading you're objecting to, and I'm claiming is necessary. There were, of necessity, decisions finding for the first time that freedom "of the press" included radio and television broadcasts.

Have you actually studied the history of established religions, in Europe, and in the middle east? Iran and Saudi Arabia are now experiencing the joys of that. In Europe, it's become vestigial; the law is still there, but like the Queen of England, has no remaining force. We had their experience to draw on, and avoided making that particular mistake.

 

[grampster]

IMHO the conservative view is that the beauty of the Constitution and B of R is that as society evolves and changes it (the Constitution and B of R) remains grounded as an immutable document that is totally applicable to the circumstances that it is defining. The liberal view is the opposite, the document is defined by the circumstance. (I wonder if what I just said makes sense to anyone else other than me??!!)
grampster

 

[2nd Amendment]

The word "press", even in the 18th century, was accepted to refer to media, not specifically a machine for stamping out leaflets. News reporting, of whatever fashion. Though some fool may have chalenged this at some point or three is merely a reflection of that individual/groups foolishness.

Your second paragraphhas nothing to do with what I said or what the BoR says. The 1st guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROm religion. It denies the establishment of an official State Church. That's it. The end. "Separation" is a means to a political and social engineering end.

 

[dd-b]

Freedom of religion must include the freedom to not practice one.

As to "establishment", the act of picking a religion for the state to endorse is precisely the forbidden establishment of religion. Which we're wildly in violation of already.

 

[dd-b]

Originally posted by grampster
IMHO the conservative view is that the beauty of the Constitution and B of R is that as society evolves and changes it (the Constitution and B of R) remains grounded as an immutable document that is totally applicable to the circumstances that it is defining. The liberal view is the opposite, the document is defined by the circumstance. (I wonder if what I just said makes sense to anyone else other than me??!!)
grampster

Well, um, not exactly, no .

The liberal view as I understand it is that it is necessary to figure out how the constitution applies to things that are new since it was written.

I don't actually understand what the various other views are. I mean, you can't very well argue that the constitution magically foresaw everything that was going to happen and therefore contains literal instructions for those situations, can you? I mean, with a straight face?

 

[2nd Amendment]

...wildly in violation of...

Where?

 

[grampster]

dd-b,

Regards your last paragraph: Your view, then, seems to infer that I believe (albiet with a straight face) that the Constitution was a magical document that was in essense a "soothsayer" with respect to the future. To this I say yes, emphatically!!

I would submit the founders had a keen understanding of how this nation would evolve, its potential that is. They created a document that is the foundation that our liberty stands upon. That liberty was freedom. With freedom, s**t happens.

The direction toward which we, as Americans, are headed are in no way predictive of whether the Constitution should change to accomodate us. Rather we should wonder if we should change to accomodate its principals on the basis of the history of its existance and the impact it has had on human behaviour. We, I believe, rest upon that foundation, with a firm belief in it. For we know that if the foundation shifts, the whole shebang is in danger and could fall. If the foundation is secure, the building is safe.

For Liberty,
Grampster

 

[dd-b]

Re: ...wildly in violation of...

Originally posted by 2nd Amendment
Where?

Everything from prayers in congress to religious holidays. Basically every time you turn around you're smashed in the face with enforced christianity.

 

[dd-b]

Originally posted by 2nd Amendment
The word "press", even in the 18th century, was accepted to refer to media, not specifically a machine for stamping out leaflets. News reporting, of whatever fashion. Though some fool may have chalenged this at some point or three is merely a reflection of that individual/groups foolishness.

The earliest citation I can find for that meaning of "press" is 1797, which is at the *very* end of the 18th century, and, more important, after the use of the phrase in the constitution.

The more familiar use of "freedom of the press" and closely related phrases goes back to at least 1644.

So I don't believe that the general news media is what was meant by the use in the 1st Amendment.

Furthermore, it was understood from the beginning to protect political opinion and polemic at least as much as news reporting, empirical evidence that the founders didn't think it meant what you say.

 

[grampster]

dd-b, Sigh............................................

 

[dd-b]

Originally posted by grampster
dd-b,

Regards your last paragraph: Your view, then, seems to infer that I believe (albiet with a straight face) that the Constitution was a magical document that was in essense a "soothsayer" with respect to the future. To this I say yes, emphatically!!

I don't think we're communicating accurately here, somehow. The constitution doesn't say a word about "freedom of all media of communication", it talks about only the ones that existed when it was written (in-person talk, and printed stuff). (See my separate message to 2nd Amendment about his contention that "press" meant "news media" at the time the 1st Amendment was passed).

And yet it's clearly important that that freedom be extended to new media as they are invented. I believe we're in agreement on that?

So the choices are to amend the constitution as it comes along, or to recognize that the intention was broader than the wording. Both approaches have their problems. Really strict construction leads to frequent amendments, which leads to a very dangerous level of "messing with" for such a basic document.

The direction toward which we, as Americans, are headed are in no way predictive of whether the Constitution should change to accomodate us. Rather we should wonder if we should change to accomodate its principals on the basis of the history of its existance and the impact it has had on human behaviour. We, I believe, rest upon that foundation, with a firm belief in it. For we know that if the foundation shifts, the whole shebang is in danger and could fall. If the foundation is secure, the building is safe.

Notice how the foundations of the former World Trade Center are still there, and are in fact included in some of the memorial proposals? A firm foundation is unfortunately not a sufficient guarantee of long-term stability.

 

[grampster]

dd-b
But I don't think ideas and buildings are comparable except as alliterations of description for convenience sake. To say that even tho the World Trade Center has been destroyed, the foundation remains and that is somehow a good thing, is perplexing. Wouldn't it be better that the Trade Center remained? The implication being something else can be built on that foundation. But, there is no guarantee that what will come will be better.
If we accomodate the "idea" (read Constitution) in order to construct the "things", those "things" are guaranteed to be better. History is the evidence that reinforces that proposition.

You and I have some sort of a bastard agreement. We both agree in the imprtance of the Constitution. Our views part company with respect to ascenancy. Should man rule or Law? It comes to that basis in the end.

History has proven that the rule of Law transcends the dealings of men and is prefferable as the rule of law is based on the equality of men under the law.

 

[45-auto]

Well, I regard myself as a middle of the road kinda guy. But then I regard Teddy Kennedy as a commie.

I suppose most folks in Seattle would label me as two steps to the right of Attila the Hun. But then, most folks in Seattle prefer fish to people, so what the hey.