Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on December 16, 2006, 01:59:49 pm
-
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061216/LOCAL19/612160469
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., announced early today he will not be a candidate for president in 2008.
...
He conceded the odds were against him, describing himself as a "relatively unknown candidate."
Terrific. Now without a moderate, honest, and experienced candidate running in 2008, the Democrats' chances aren't exactly hot. If things keep going the way they are, and the Dems put out a polarizing figure like Clinton or a totally-inexperienced person like Obama, McCain won't exactly have it hard in 08.
Oh, and about Evan Bayh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh): socially liberal, fiscally conservative; an overall moderate (i.e.: exactly what the Dems need).
Thoughts?
-
Frankly Obama is just a bunch of hype BS
-
bush out and that black guy in for pres :D. would definatly bring a change and sort out any misunderstanding between white and black people. if all things go well my views on the usa will change.
bush looks like hes gone, mid vote elections has bush under 50% of the seats, not looking good.
-
Bush has to be gone Centrixo. Presidents only get two terms in the US. Many other democratic countries do not have such limitations.
-
alright thanks, didnt know that.
-
I'd like to think Obama has a chance, especially because if I have to choose between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I'll choose a Vicodin overdose.
-
Problem with Obama is he has no experience, though. There's only one person in the Senate with less national political experience than he does.
I'd rather see some moderate with competence running than some new "hopeful" face who earns his way there simply because the Democrats want to make a political move with minorities.
-
Well, I don't want a moderate because I'm not "moderate" by the current American definition. So with that as a given, I would rather have someone with less experience who supports policies I agree with than a "moderate" with more experience.
-
either way Obama is in. its up to the seats and people on the usa to vote now, you better be praying that obama or some new person dont come in and steals the limelight.
i dont live in the usa, but i do look into usa politics now and again, certain things bush hasnt done he should be shot for, kyoto treaty, the child homeless project, economic status for people, more places for the minority.
well who ever, as long as they atleast pull thier troops out of iraq and afganistan and then sign the kyoto treaty, i will be alot more happier.
besides, less experience your talking a mouldable person, you can shape this person into what ever you like. unlike bush.
-
Well as far as I know Bush had no experience in national politics when he was elected, so that's not a pre-requisite.
I also like how the Dems have to field a "moderate" candidate (one that is further to the right than the party base) and the Republicans get to field a conservative candidate. It just moving the goal-posts further to the right, not that the Democratic party has been truly leftist for many decades.
John McCain will clean up, plain and simple. He's enough of a Republican to hold the base and enough of a centrist to get the swing voters in. The only way to stop him is to destroy the source of his power: the mystic power balls concealed in his cheeks.
-
"HILLARY CLINTON IS A ****" is propably the most powerful meme in the entire internet right now
it has little do with reality and more to do with propaganda though she's too rightist for my taste
but barack obama seems like a cool guy and he's too rightist for my taste too lol
-
Obama is a nice young fellow... and thats all most people know of him. It works to his advantage for now, but as time goes on I think he'll come off looking like an empty suit with a smile. Hillary on the other hand is no choice. Too much history as a senator and too much bad mojo from the Clinton era. The main chance democrats have is to use these front runners as distractions, clearing the road for a third candidate.
Republicans on the other hand have a few more solid names to call on.
Its all going to pend on how the next year goes in the senate.
-
I also like how the Dems have to field a "moderate" candidate (one that is further to the right than the party base) and the Republicans get to field a conservative candidate. It just moving the goal-posts further to the right, not that the Democratic party has been truly leftist for many decades.
John McCain will clean up, plain and simple. He's enough of a Republican to hold the base and enough of a centrist to get the swing voters in. The only way to stop him is to destroy the source of his power: the mystic power balls concealed in his cheeks.
I like how you say the republicans get to run a right winger when the democrats have to run a centrist, and then in the very next line talk about how the most left wing guy of censiquence in the republican party is going to clean up.
-
Oh trust me, McCain is gonna be doing plenty of sucking up to the far right.
-
Every independent (news/editorial/opinion) report I've read about Obama is saying he's looking pretty strong as a candidate.
-
same in the uk. i hope its good news.
-
Oh trust me, McCain is gonna be doing plenty of sucking up to the far right.
I have no doubt, with some of the things he's done to piss them off he'll need to make a lot of BS to get them to let him run as there candidate.
-
I like how you say the republicans get to run a right winger when the democrats have to run a centrist, and then in the very next line talk about how the most left wing guy of censiquence in the republican party is going to clean up.
The fact remains that McCain is more of a right-winger than X (potential candidate, for example Hillary Clinton) is a left-winger. The lefties in the Democratic party are few and far between, whereas the righties in the Republican party are the base.
But I would still personally prefer a libertarian Republican to a Clintonite Democrat, because libertarianism is pretty much the only ideology in the US where foreign nations have even a chance of conducting their affairs without interference. The Blair/Clinton types would jump at intervention just as quickly as the neocons, only they have slightly different pet projects and imperial plans. And since I know libertarianism is near and dear to you, polls (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14106) show that a very healthy minority of Americans consider themselves to be libertarian.
edit: and I maintain that McCain/Guliani will sweep the elections like a fu**ing hurricane.
-
Well I actually met Obama, and the man actually has a brain in there which I can not say for the rest of the government.
If McCain is ran, it's only because the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from their more right-wing elements due to seeing what damage Bush has done. However, I expect the same thing to happen as with the past several elections the more moderate Repubs get torpedoed by the hawks. No matter how much sucking up McCain does to the extremists he's still not a good puppet.
If the dems are smart they'll run Obama, solidify their base, and make damn sure that McCain and Gulliani are lambasted by Republicans for being "too liberal." Still, I only expect McCain or Gulliani to run if the Republicans are really... really... scared. They might be desperate enough now to give up pushing things to the right for a bit, but somehow I think they still believe everyone wants rightwing politics and Iraq is an inconvenience as opposed to a symptom of their greater issues.
-
well I didn't say it would help him any, but he's gona try.
-
Look at Pataki (R-NY)... he is a good canidate and he's exploring the possibility for '08...
Most people say they won't vote for Clinton just because she is like a single piece of paper in a hurricane... she goes whatever way the wind blows... besides with Hil back in there, Bil will pull the strings AGAIN... that'll be his first unoffical term, sort of like his 3rd presidency term...
-
Not sure if having Bill having a "third term" would be a bad thing either...it would be an interesting situation. Clinton I understand is still higher than Bush on any popularity rating you can find. The man seems to be universally liked.
-
you got my vote on clinton, bill that is. not hilary. too much of a b**ch. thats my 2 cents.
-
Not sure if having Bill having a "third term" would be a bad thing either...it would be an interesting situation. Clinton I understand is still higher than Bush on any popularity rating you can find. The man seems to be universally liked.
He pays his prostitutes well, so they vote for him in the opinion polls.
-
i got to say at least bill had a brain unlike these other morons that led the country, he had affairs, problems like everyone else family issues. so what if he likes abit of fun so, dont the rest of us?.
i admit even playing corridor 7 the old shooter game based on a building and you have to destroy the vortex that leads to a space station with aliens(purely for fun), and bodycount(terrorist shoot em up). hell i even play warzone 2100(futuristic based building game where you defeat enemy factions after a nuclear war). but the point is bill showed us, the rest of the world that he existed, and isnt a zombie like bush. that probably made him more popular imo.
but you compare that to bush, theres none of the human qualities, except his daughter :p. bring on the new president :nod:
-
I still have corridor 7
-
Oh trust me, McCain is gonna be doing plenty of sucking up to the far right.
I have no doubt, with some of the things he's done to piss them off he'll need to make a lot of BS to get them to let him run as there candidate.
Well, considering how he already plans to deploy more troops to Iraq, sucking up to the hawks isn't a problem. His timetable for withdrawal, however, might be a problem to the extreme right. However, we've seen recently (especially in 2006) that swing voters and centrists are going to play a huge role, as they are the ones that voted in the more centrist candidates.
Well I actually met Obama, and the man actually has a brain in there which I can not say for the rest of the government.
If McCain is ran, it's only because the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from their more right-wing elements due to seeing what damage Bush has done. However, I expect the same thing to happen as with the past several elections the more moderate Repubs get torpedoed by the hawks. No matter how much sucking up McCain does to the extremists he's still not a good puppet.
If the dems are smart they'll run Obama, solidify their base, and make damn sure that McCain and Gulliani are lambasted by Republicans for being "too liberal." Still, I only expect McCain or Gulliani to run if the Republicans are really... really... scared. They might be desperate enough now to give up pushing things to the right for a bit, but somehow I think they still believe everyone wants rightwing politics and Iraq is an inconvenience as opposed to a symptom of their greater issues.
The Republicans might have had a rough term, but they're not stupid. Check out the midterm elections: a lot of the Democrats that won weren't Clintonite Dems or extreme liberals; they were typically conservative Democrats. The Republicans will run a reasonably-centrist candidate like McCain, and the Dems will run someone fresh like Obama. I doubt the Republicans will torpedo McCain, especially if Republican voters nominate him for the run; the Republicans are starting to distance themselves from the neoconservatives and far right, simply because they've seen how unpopular Bush has been.
What the American government needs is a divided one: Dems hold the Congress, and Republicans control the White House, or any other situation where ideologies conflict between the two branches. It seems to have helped the US over the past 50 years or so. A divided government will ensure that stuff gets done, but it gets done only after thorough debate between the two branches, which is sorely needed at the moment. Otherwise, we're back to the same situation as we saw with Bush and a Republican Congress (and, to some extent, a parliamentary system).
-
easiest way for dems to win presidency.
johnson dies\resigns, repubs put through a draft
now that isn't going to happen, but, it's a "nice" thought
and a draft is worth it because, frankly, we need something to motivate the apathetic youth of america to do SOMETHING, something that affects "me" is usually the easiest way to do that, and spoiled americans get pissed when you force us to go to police action
-
You're quite right. A draft would motivate me. It would motivate me to move to Canada.
How old are you? That doesn't really matter. Regardless of your age, you're perpetrating the stereotype that the youth of the U.S. are useless idiots and should rightly **** off. It's true we've got our fair share of bad apples, but look at the good ones. They're so shiny! Go ahead, take a bite.
-
well what ever floats your boat :D. apples or not. why would you move to canada because a person who you hate is in charge?, dont make sense to me. fair enough if its someone like the guy that runs zimbabwe, but usa isnt an african dictator.
not all youth is a bunch of useless people, people who respond here are young and use there minds, such as moddling and making a old neglected game better. linked to the last post(d3r3k)
-
well what ever floats your boat :D. apples or not. why would you move to canada because a person who you hate is in charge?, dont make sense to me. fair enough if its someone like the guy that runs zimbabwe, but usa isnt an african dictator.
He's saying he'd move to Canada if they introduced The Draft. Which means mandatory military service like in Vietnam. Just to be clear.
He's not saying anything about moving because he doesn't like the leader.
-
Just to note: Mandatory Military service does not make someone anti war or pro to any particular party.
It also does not force the rich to send their children into combat, it never did before.
Charlie Rangals (D) plan for the draft is slated to backfire, since that man often does alot more talking than thinking.
Its also not going anywhere.
-
You're quite right. A draft would motivate me. It would motivate me to move to Canada.
How old are you? That doesn't really matter. Regardless of your age, you're perpetrating the stereotype that the youth of the U.S. are useless idiots and should rightly **** off. It's true we've got our fair share of bad apples, but look at the good ones. They're so shiny! Go ahead, take a bite.
it does matter, I know a great deal about the apathetic youth because, god damn, I am one of them <20 in january>
and even though you personally would move to canada, not everyone would make that descision <if canada would shelter draft dodgers this time, they've occasionally said they wouldn't, I'd go for holland, harder to get in by far, but much better uality of life, start learning dutch now, plus chicks think multi lingual guys are hot>
some people would protest, when there actually have been protests in this nations history <rare> stuff happened, the major reason the anti-war movement of vietnam was so much stronger than this one was the draftee army, the media coverage was also certainly a factor, watch vietnam coverage then watch iraq coverage HUGE difference
we should be flipping out as much if not more about this police action, but the american people won't because it is a volunteer armed forces, the argument can always be "well, they chose to be there" and even if it isn't said aloud it is lurking somewhere
if a draft got passed the people who wee getting drafted and didn't want to go would need someone to blame, it'd be the party who passed it, whoever that was, but the dems could recover in this climate <after a republican president was elected> the republicans would have a much harder time of it, and if this new guy is as troop hungry as mcnamara, or if we get engaged on another ground, we are going to need a draft, just depends on who is in the majority when the hammer comes down
and rangals didn't have much backing to begin with, his was a political move, it wasn't to see if it would pass, far from it, it was to see something else, I don't know what, but they were testing something <think load testing, you are running say prime numbers calculations, but they aren't the outcome>
-
Rangel seemed pretty serious that he wanted it passed, and his reasoning was that the rich would then know the cost of war...
Rich people tend not to get sent to wars.
They get into the national guard, get out on doctors notes, get excused for other reasons or get out of the country just in time to avoid it. When they do get drafted, they often get cushy positions that bear none of the risks normal soldiers face.
Forcing a rifle on someone wont make them a dove.
Throwing more poor people into the grinder wont change anything for the better. Especially if the media is going to paint them all as villains or tools of "the man" at the end of the day.
Wars are going to happen and its better for everyone, citizens and the military, if our soldiers have freely chosen to be there.
-
Unless I'm mistaken, Obama hasn't announced his candidacy yet. I honestly think it'd be pretty funny if he didn't run after all this hype.
As for his experience, I haven't really researched him, but he is a senator. That kinda says something about a person... one would hope so, anyway. And he is rather charismatic, which means he can deal well with the people. I'd be much happier with him in power than that damned Hilary. Christ.
Also chiming in to say that if anyone tries to take anyone's firearms away I'll ****ing gut them.
-
typical. firearms, the united kingdom and other european countries dont need firearms and the usa should be the same as an example. one reason why im staying out of the usa is for that reason.
its good that people arent forced to go into the crusher and die for no reason, well that is until the president orders that to happen, if your right ghost and obama is a peoples man, then i think obama will pull these men out of the crusher before its too late. over 1000 americans have died in iraq already. i hope its for the best.
-
Over 1,000? Try almost 3,000.
-
yeah around that. it was only a rough guess, no need to be specific
-
As for his experience, I haven't really researched him, but he is a senator. That kinda says something about a person... one would hope so, anyway. And he is rather charismatic, which means he can deal well with the people. I'd be much happier with him in power than that damned Hilary. Christ.
Anyone's better than Hillary in power, honestly. I don't have a problem with Obama's politics; it's his lack of political experience that makes me pissed off; he's got less than ten years at the local level, and only about half of one term at the national level.
Which is why Bayh would've been such a great choice; his nine years as Indiana's governor were possibly the best in the state's 190-year history (he had an 80% approval rating; bear in mind, he's a Democrat in the solidly-red Indiana). He's got eight years in the Senate under his belt, and is typically one of the most moderate politicans of the day.
**** you Democratic Party for letting an extremist like Hillary and a newbie like Obama overshadow that. Just because they happen to non-WASP males, doesn't mean they should get any more attention than those that are.
-
european countries dont need firearms and the usa should be the same as an example
Personally I don't like the thought of having my house raided by the police and letting them cart off my personal stuff just to make an example of me to someone in some other part of the world. The very notion that a US politician might honestly think that way sends cold shivers down my spine.
If other nations want it so, silly as it may seem, thats their own choice to make.
-
the thing is, sorry about this.
but the people of the united states care more for thier version of privacy as long as law suites are involved and dont want to see past it.
lets see what happens first.
-
the thing is, sorry about this.
but the people of the united states care more for thier version of privacy as long as law suites are involved and dont want to see past it.
lets see what happens first.
The American people want their privacy to the extent where the government shouldn't be interfering at all with one's private life, unless it presents an immediate danger to other citizens. A law-abiding citizen owning a firearm is just one such example.
What defines the "American version of privacy" when compared to the "European version" or any other type, might I ask?
-
european countries dont need firearms and the usa should be the same as an example
Personally I don't like the thought of having my house raided by the police and letting them cart off my personal stuff just to make an example of me to someone in some other part of the world. The very notion that a US politician might honestly think that way sends cold shivers down my spine.
If other nations want it so, silly as it may seem, thats their own choice to make.
I'm not quite sure you're familiar with how UK gun laws work, both pre and post Hamilton report. I'm not aware of any private citizen being 'raided' by police for gun ownership, with the exception of arms dealers who have been raided as i'm sure unlicensed/street dealers would be in the US.
Of course, the UK never really had the same impulsive need for its citizens to arm themselves to the teeth in a quasi-arms race with criminals lurking just-around-that-dark-corner....
-
Of course, the UK never really had the same impulsive need for its citizens to arm themselves to the teeth in a quasi-arms race with criminals lurking just-around-that-dark-corner....
And the UK never really had a Second Amendment protecting the citizens' right to arms. (Or even a written constitution, but that's another story).
-
where does the uk fit into american liberal democrats? back on topic.
-
Of course, the UK never really had the same impulsive need for its citizens to arm themselves to the teeth in a quasi-arms race with criminals lurking just-around-that-dark-corner....
And the UK never really had a Second Amendment protecting the citizens' right to arms. (Or even a written constitution, but that's another story).
I think it's pretty debatable, though, that that's what the 2nd amendment means.
where does the uk fit into american liberal democrats? back on topic.
I'm not sure the US Democrats could be described as 'liberal'. :)
-
Of course, the UK never really had the same impulsive need for its citizens to arm themselves to the teeth in a quasi-arms race with criminals lurking just-around-that-dark-corner....
And the UK never really had a Second Amendment protecting the citizens' right to arms. (Or even a written constitution, but that's another story).
I think it's pretty debatable, though, that that's what the 2nd amendment means.
No, it isn't really debatable.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It's out there in plain letters. The extent of the right to keep and bear arms is debatable (i.e should Americans be allowed to have automatics or machine guns in their own, as opposed to just a sidearm for greasing an intruder), but the right is stated clearly.
-
Personally I believe that the liberal establishment has gone to far in curbing my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to thermonuclear weapons.
Who Would Jesus Destroy?
-
The interesting thing is that there are still plenty of firearm owners in the EU.
They just tend to be rich and/or powerful. Or Swiss.
As far as 2008 is concerned, I think this is going to be the least predictable election in a loooong time.
-
No, it isn't really debatable.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It's out there in plain letters. The extent of the right to keep and bear arms is debatable (i.e should Americans be allowed to have automatics or machine guns in their own, as opposed to just a sidearm for greasing an intruder), but the right is stated clearly.
You bolded the wrong bit;
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
To me that says, people shall be allowed to bear arms as part of a militia. The 1792 Militia Act (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) defines what a (well) regulated militia is quite clearly, and it's not just 'citizens'.
Ergo, there is your room for debate.
-
darn, so I need to be in a special club to get ahold of that tank I always wanted....
I woulda pretty much been guaranteed to vote mccain until his falwell thing, I know it was a solidify the base thing, but the 180 turn really hurts my opinion of him
-
This amendment obviously does not protect the right of your standing army to own guns, that would be a waste of paper.
Now where does it say "only people in a militia"?
It says one thing (that a militia is important for security) and then it says "the people", (the same bloody people that everywhere else in that document means individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms.
Where else are they supposed to get the guns if they don't own them?
The governments not going to hand out weapons in the middle of a disaster, we supposed to steal them?
-
The Militia Act also says:
and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
The Act states that the militia would consist of American male residents between 18 and 45, and that each citizen is required to obtain his own weapon. The rest of the Act is just organization of the militia and chain of command, but the principle of the Act stands: the citizen is given the right to acquire necessary arms and equipment in defense of his community.
Hence where the debate only rests with what is absolutely necessary; do you really need a full automatic to defend your community, or will a Winchester rifle or a handgun do just fine?
EDIT: No wonder I'd never heard of this Act. The 1903 Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903) replaced it.
-
The Militia Act also says:
and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
The Act states that the militia would consist of American male residents between 18 and 45, and that each citizen is required to obtain his own weapon. The rest of the Act is just organization of the militia and chain of command, but the principle of the Act stands: the citizen is given the right to acquire necessary arms and equipment in defense of his community.
Hence where the debate only rests with what is absolutely necessary; do you really need a full automatic to defend your community, or will a Winchester rifle or a handgun do just fine?
EDIT: No wonder I'd never heard of this Act. The 1903 Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903) replaced it.
Nonetheless, the 1792 militia act is the clearest indicator of the meaning of 'militia' with regards to the Constitution; unless it was updated post 1903 to that regard, which of course I may have missed. Section 4 of the 1792 act, to me, makes it clear that militia are only in service for a set period and paid. It also states that members of the militia - said 18 to 45 years olds - shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company. It also describes the military organisation - size, structure - of the militia. I don't think there is a single civillian outside of National Guard, etc, who fits those requirements.
Hence, I would think there is a strong argument that the constitution only allows free holding of weapons where those weapon holders are to be prepared for conscription into a national militia which is now, effectively, the National Guard; i.e. the the 'spirit of the law' is not the random armament of civillians for any purpose said civillian deems fit. And I would certainly think that argument is not as legally clear cut as you say it is - but, of course, it's not politically expedient to actually investigate it when the NRA is willing to fear-monger alongside hefty campaign contributions.
-
The Militia Act also says:
and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
The Act states that the militia would consist of American male residents between 18 and 45, and that each citizen is required to obtain his own weapon. The rest of the Act is just organization of the militia and chain of command, but the principle of the Act stands: the citizen is given the right to acquire necessary arms and equipment in defense of his community.
Hence where the debate only rests with what is absolutely necessary; do you really need a full automatic to defend your community, or will a Winchester rifle or a handgun do just fine?
EDIT: No wonder I'd never heard of this Act. The 1903 Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903) replaced it.
Nonetheless, the 1792 militia act is the clearest indicator of the meaning of 'militia' with regards to the Constitution; unless it was updated post 1903 to that regard, which of course I may have missed. Section 4 of the 1792 act, to me, makes it clear that militia are only in service for a set period and paid. It also states that members of the militia - said 18 to 45 years olds - shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company. It also describes the military organisation - size, structure - of the militia. I don't think there is a single civillian outside of National Guard, etc, who fits those requirements.
Hence, I would think there is a strong argument that the constitution only allows free holding of weapons where those weapon holders are to be prepared for conscription into a national militia which is now, effectively, the National Guard; i.e. the the 'spirit of the law' is not the random armament of civillians for any purpose said civillian deems fit. And I would certainly think that argument is not as legally clear cut as you say it is - but, of course, it's not politically expedient to actually investigate it when the NRA is willing to fear-monger alongside hefty campaign contributions.
You're right in some cases. However, none of the 1792, 1862, or 1903 Acts hold supremacy--the Constitution and its Amendments do. Call it fear-mongering by the NRA if you will, but Americans like their guns, and most of them interpret the Second Amendment in the same way that I just have.
With regards to the militia, it's hardly been disbanded at all; the National Guard is now the "official militia" of the US. There are dozens of more private militias (http://www.fortliberty.org/militia/militia-groups.shtml) that fulfill a similar role.
-
The militia is the people, and the people have the right to protect themselves from anything. That includes a tyrannical government. How do tyrannical governments get into power? By meeting little to no resistance. How do you put up a resistance? By using guns.
-
Americans like their guns
Israelis like their guns too. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,6189.0.html)
EDIT: Damnit sandwich, put those photos back! :hopping:
-
The militia is the people, and the people have the right to protect themselves from anything. That includes a tyrannical government. How do tyrannical governments get into power? By meeting little to no resistance. How do you put up a resistance? By using guns.
How do you launch a coup? By using guns..... Sorry, little triviality there.
I think the definition of a militia - an organized, regulated force to 'protect' the people and overthrow the government - is still an important concept with regards to the 2nd amendment. Albeit the people could do very little nowadays against a government with the current US govs' resources, plus my reading is that the militia was created - whilst with a steadily watered-down capacity to usurp the president - with a mind to defending the nascent US from external invasion by the Great Powers and from internal strife with indigenous peoples.
You're right in some cases. However, none of the 1792, 1862, or 1903 Acts hold supremacy--the Constitution and its Amendments do. Call it fear-mongering by the NRA if you will, but Americans like their guns, and most of them interpret the Second Amendment in the same way that I just have.
With regards to the militia, it's hardly been disbanded at all; the National Guard is now the "official militia" of the US. There are dozens of more private militias (http://www.fortliberty.org/militia/militia-groups.shtml) that fulfill a similar role.
Regardless, surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within? How many americans, yourself notwithstanding, are taught about the various militia acts et al in school?
I'm well aware the national guard exists as the current militia; you'll have to forgive me for not being au-fait with the official legality of private militias (who could just as well be Koresh-esque nutters in a camp in the woods, surely?). However, I'm pretty sure the concept of a self-armed, fully conscriptable male militia doesn't exist in US society as it did at the definition of the 1792 act and thus - I'd expect - in the minds of those drafting the 2nd amendment.
To be honest, I'm not all that interested in arguing the 2nd amendments' interpretation; I'm neither a judge nor American after all. But I just think there is still an argument, regardless of common interpretations, to be made for an alternate interpretation.
-
Don't worry, I often interpret the Constitution in a regrettable, but necessary way. How else am I supposed to justify all those bank robberies?
-
surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?
Whats to understand about the context in which the constitution was written?
The people who wrote it were just secured in power, through no small part, by armed citizens bearing personal weapons and ammunition. They knew these people would be useful in fending off future attacks, from inside or outside. Its been a factor in US security as recently as WW2.
The founders could not have imagined how powerful the US would be today... but likewise, how can you say with any assurance where we will be tomorrow? Why thin out your own rights to the favor of politicians and foreigners that wont have to live with the effects?
-
surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?
Whats to understand about the context in which the constitution was written?
The people who wrote it were just secured in power, through no small part, by armed citizens bearing personal weapons and ammunition. They knew these people would be useful in fending off future attacks, from inside or outside. Its been a factor in US security as recently as WW2.
The founders could not have imagined how powerful the US would be today... but likewise, how can you say with any assurance where we will be tomorrow? Why thin out your own rights to the favor of politicians and foreigners that wont have to live with the effects?
I'm not sure what your point is. The inclusion of the right to bear arms was made for a specific purpose, and with the changes to both the social, political, economic, global, etc nature of the US since then it's only natural that the literal interpretation may not be within the actual spirit of the constitution, particularly if you are attempting to justify rigid adherance to said document. What I mean is, surely in order to understand what the constitution means, you have to know how, where, when, why, etc it was written and thus the meaning that the writers ascribed to the words therein?
-
surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?
Whats to understand about the context in which the constitution was written?
The people who wrote it were just secured in power, through no small part, by armed citizens bearing personal weapons and ammunition. They knew these people would be useful in fending off future attacks, from inside or outside. Its been a factor in US security as recently as WW2.
The founders could not have imagined how powerful the US would be today... but likewise, how can you say with any assurance where we will be tomorrow? Why thin out your own rights to the favor of politicians and foreigners that wont have to live with the effects?
I'm not sure what your point is. The inclusion of the right to bear arms was made for a specific purpose, and with the changes to both the social, political, economic, global, etc nature of the US since then it's only natural that the literal interpretation may not be within the actual spirit of the constitution, particularly if you are attempting to justify rigid adherance to said document. What I mean is, surely in order to understand what the constitution means, you have to know how, where, when, why, etc it was written and thus the meaning that the writers ascribed to the words therein?
But the situation hasn't really changed all that drastically since the day of the Founders. Standing armies can still pose a threat to a population's security and liberty. The decentralization of the military as intended by the formation of a militia and the peoples' rights to keep and bear arms is the backbone of the Second Amendment. The Founders and Framers had just come off of a revolution that had been accomplished through arms, so they would have best understood the necessity of the people to be armed rather than allow the government to have a monopoly on arms in a professional standing army.
The situation is still applicable today. Violent revolutions by armed citizens against governments aren't uncommon, and cases such as Vietnam and current-day Iraq show that average citizens armed with even basic weapons can stand up to professional, modernized armies. The Second Amendment protects the citizens' collection of weapons to overthrow the government as a last resort, however; the Constitution provides for so many other peaceful measures to alter the government (through the Amendment process and elections, mostly) that violent revolution may not be necessary.
-
surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?
Whats to understand about the context in which the constitution was written?
The people who wrote it were just secured in power, through no small part, by armed citizens bearing personal weapons and ammunition. They knew these people would be useful in fending off future attacks, from inside or outside. Its been a factor in US security as recently as WW2.
The founders could not have imagined how powerful the US would be today... but likewise, how can you say with any assurance where we will be tomorrow? Why thin out your own rights to the favor of politicians and foreigners that wont have to live with the effects?
I'm not sure what your point is. The inclusion of the right to bear arms was made for a specific purpose, and with the changes to both the social, political, economic, global, etc nature of the US since then it's only natural that the literal interpretation may not be within the actual spirit of the constitution, particularly if you are attempting to justify rigid adherance to said document. What I mean is, surely in order to understand what the constitution means, you have to know how, where, when, why, etc it was written and thus the meaning that the writers ascribed to the words therein?
It doesn't really matter what the founders thought, what matters is what it says in the constitution.