Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:36:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
499 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong. I'm protecting the constitution from you.
> > > >
> > > > Your constitution is 100's of years old. Perhaps it needs to be updated.
> > > > Perhaps it needs a few more amendments
> > >
> > > I'd welcome a straightforward proposal of amendments and an honest debate.
> > > What gets up my nose is the chinese water torture we've seen lately in which
> > > the constitution has been suborned one step at a time by "activist" judges.
> > > I support strict construction and open change processes.
> > >
> > > Amend the constitution? Great. Ignore it, interpret it in direct conflict
> > > with what the founders intended(1)? Nope, not going to support that.
> >
> > Does this not imply that you feel that the founders could not be wrong in
> > any way, and that their intentions are 100% clear?
>
> No, it does not imply either of those things. I'm shocked, just shocked,
> that you would not be able to read my words and derive the clear meaning
> they contain. But oh well.
>
> The constitution suffers from lack of clarity in many places, unfortunately,
> even when interpretation is aided by documented intent of the authors (in
> the Federalist Papers, which early supreme court decisions cite as
> documentation of intent). Further, the constitution has been amended many
> more times than just the original 10 that sold people on the adoption. So
> it's a living document.
>
> In some cases those amendments were conflicting. In some cases they were a
> bad idea. In some cases they've been corrected. In some cases they haven't
> and ought to be. But we ought to adhere to the constitution as written until
> it is changed.
>
> My point, strangely enough, is that if people feel that, for example, the
> 2nd needs to be struck down or changed, let them put forth such a proposed
> amendment and let us debate it openly rather than chipping away at it
> deviously. (just as poll taxes clearly suborned the intent of the amendments
> granting all the right to vote in the 19th century...)
From a UK perspective, I see nothing wrong with laws slowly changing to
mirror changes in society. In the US it would be very hard to ban guns
overnight. They way to remove the risk caused by guns to Joe Public is to
slowly tighten access to them and restricting the range available. It is no
big deal.
Scott A
>
> But judicial activism is wrong. Strict construction is what is needed from
> judges and I would use it as a litmus test.
>
> By the way I'd support a significant change to the 2nd. It needs to be
> reworded to be clearer.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) No, it does not imply either of those things. I'm shocked, just shocked, that you would not be able to read my words and derive the clear meaning they contain. But oh well. The constitution suffers from lack of clarity in many places, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
