NJR: Shootings at Virginia Tech Worst in US History

[kamome]

WTF? You think that since we've pissed away our right to privacy we should give up our other rights as well?

I know freedom is scary but I say what the fuck let's go for it anyway!

That's not what I said. My point is that the Constitution is not a static document and is subject to interpretation. I think it's hard to advocate a literalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment when the rest of the Constitution is subject to interpretation in light of changing times.

[AssKissinger]

Well everyone knows that even the amendments are subject to judicial interpretation. I just get the feeling you don't want to turn the freedom up to eleven. I say let's crank that fucking shit up!

[Adhesive]

That's not what I said. My point is that the Constitution is not a static document and is subject to interpretation. I think it's hard to advocate a literalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment when the rest of the Constitution is subject to interpretation in light of changing times.

The Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be INFRINGED.

The Fourth Amendment (what you referenced in your reply to my original post): the right of the people to be secure in their persons...against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures shall not be violated.

If you think upholding a law banning firearms is no more of a stretch than allowing searches and seizures with "fuzzy" probable cause, I'd suggest retaking ConLaw 1.

And to you "the constitution isn't static" people; then what the hell is the point of a constitution? Why not just have legislature through the congress which is much more flexible and representative of the time and the people? If you think the 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable today then amend the fucking constitution!! Don't play the interpretation game and completely strip the constitution of its validity!

The constitution and the 2nd amendment, specifically were created to limit the power of the government, and yes times are different; guns are more deadly, but guess what, so is the Federal government's military arsenal. Perhaps the framers did intend both to advance in parallel. And although it may be difficult to overthrow the government with assault rifles, I'll take those odds over storming Washington with bats and steak knives.

I'm quite sloshed right now, so I hopefully this post is coherent.

[American Oyaji]

I'm going to buy a gun this year. Then I'm going to get a conceal/carry permit.

So there.

[Charles]

[quote="Adhesive"]..And to you "the constitution isn't static" people]
You should read this:

The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't Know They Have

Actually, the title is a misnomer, the subject of the 9th Amendment is "unenumerated rights" that no law can restrict. The law does not give us rights, the law prevents government from unfairly restricting our rights.

[Adhesive]

You should read this:

The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't Know They Have

Actually, the title is a misnomer, the subject of the 9th Amendment is "unenumerated rights" that no law can restrict. The law does not give us rights, the law prevents government from unfairly restricting our rights.

I'm a law student, so I am pretty familiar with the constitution. It is true that the framers were worried that expressly mentioning some rights would encourage the government to argue that any rights not expressly enumerated were fair game to be trampled over. However, as the 9th amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Courts, there is a process used to determine which implied rights are fundemental. It's not simply that the 9th amendment protects any right that we can think up. The first step is to look to our history and see if the right in question has traditionally been protected. This is where it gets really messy. Rights like gay sodomy have not been traditionally protected, and it is very difficult to argue that it was one of the right implied by the framers, however, the court looks at gay sodomy as a much broader right of privacy in our relationships, and that, they argue, has traditionally been protected. The same is true for contraception, abortion, and some right to death decisions.

However, I'm a bit confused (and drunk) about why I'm explaining this, as the topic is about taking away an EXPRESS right that is actually enumerated in the constitution and is to not be INFRINGED. Oh and by the way, I didn't read the entire article, so I'm not sure what point your are making? Apologies if I'm way out in left field.

P.S. I would read it, but that site is incredibly biased.
P.P.S: ALthough I am very happy with the outcome of Roe vs. Wade, and the cases striking down anti-sodomy laws, and would love to have bans on gay-marriage struck down, I agree with scalia that they should have been done through the political process and the Court, methodologically, was very...unsound...in arriving at the decisons they did. This leads me back to one of my original arguments, that this judicial "activism" may be desirable in certain times, but it ultimately weakens the constitution by allowing for more too much interpretation from justices.

[Charles]

However, I'm a bit confused (drunk) about why I'm explaining this, as the topic is about taking away an EXPRESS right that is actually enumerated in the constitution and is to not be INFRINGED.

I can tell you didn't read the article. One of the themes is that express rights are under attack from the same angle that unenumerated rights are being attacked. This is an excerpt from what looks to be a really interesting book. Read it, seriously, I think you'd like it.

[Adhesive]

I can tell you didn't read the article. One of the themes is that express rights are under attack from the same angle that unenumerated rights are being attacked. This is an excerpt from what looks to be a really interesting book. Read it, seriously, I think you'd like it.

Oh, ok, let me sober-up a bit.

[Adhesive]

OK, read the article; pretty good but I do have a problem with his/her general characterization of the "literal-interpretation" theorists:

If mainstream conservatives like Bork and Scalia are right, there is no constitutional barrier to these laws (in reference to laws requiring mentally retarded people to be sterilized), because the Framers failed to predict this abuse and explicitly ban it.

This is a real over-simplification. Scalia doesn't advocate the notion that for something to be prohibited by the constitution it has to have been explicitly banned by the framers.

Scalia would argue that in order to determine if the mentally retarded have a fundamental right to no be sterilized we should first look at the constitution, to things like the due process clause (which guarantees that certain liberties won't be taken away without due process), and if we can't find it there, then we should look at our historic traditions; Is it an interest that has traditionally been protected by our society? If not found here, he would probably even go a step further and ask "is it something that is currently protected by the majority of states." (I assume this from his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) If the particular right cannot be found in any of these places, then a law abridging that claimed right is not unconstitutional. Plain and simple. That is not to say that the law isn't a terribly ridiculous law, but it is not the Court's job to determine good policy. That should be left to the legislature, who are representatives of the people.

Now being a border-line libertarian, I, of course, like any decision that grants me more personal freedom. However, I would prefer additional rights be granted to me via the appropriate mechanism, and not through the blessing of nine appointed justices who have virtually no accountability to the people.

The problem with allowing the courts to imply a right that doesn't exist when it benefits you, is that you set a precedent for them to be able to take away rights (by "interpreting" the constitution in whatever way they believe fit), i.e., the right to bare arms.

[FG Lurker]

Guns don't make you powerful.

No, but they make the weak and the stupid feel powerful...

[emperor]

Younger brother expelled from school for being "asian and quiet"
A member of SA's 16 year old, half Japanese brother, Joshua, was just expelled from high school in a small Arkansas town. Apparently, someone took offense to a shirt he wore before the VT killings with "4 out of the 5 voices in my head tell me to go for it" on the front, and complained to the office about him being "asian and quiet". Exact words.
via Digg

[ATTACH]2476[/ATTACH]

[emperor]

via NYtimes

[kamome]

[quote="Adhesive"]The Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be INFRINGED.

The Fourth Amendment (what you referenced in your reply to my original post): the right of the people to be secure in their persons...against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures shall not be violated.

If you think upholding a law banning firearms is no more of a stretch than allowing searches and seizures with "fuzzy" probable cause, I'd suggest retaking ConLaw 1.

And to you "the constitution isn't static" people]

Take a look at the word "infringed". That word is just as interpretable as the word, "unreasonable". What is meant by infringed? Does an assault weapons ban "infringe" on the right to bear arms? Does an outright ban on weapons sales to the medically insane constitute an "infringement"? This is all open to interpretation.

If you can't understand what the point of a constitution is if it's open to interpretation, I can't help you. You seriously need to review your notes from ConLaw I.

I should also add that anyone who feels the need to bear arms as a check on the government's power is delusional. Keeping a gun in the house is no check on governmental power, and any attempt to use them against the "government" (which could be the local police or any other enforcement agency at the local, state or national level) would be met with extreme and overwhelming force. It's really a red herring argument to justify a stupid interest in keeping guns lying around.

[Adhesive]

Take a look at the word "infringed". That word is just as interpretable as the word, "unreasonable". What is meant by infringed? Does an assault weapons ban "infringe" on the right to bear arms? Does an outright ban on weapons sales to the medically insane constitute an "infringement"? This is all open to interpretation.

These were your two examples, I'm sure I could find better ones, but we'll stick to these. Take a look at the two sentence as a whole (as they are intended to be read)]
If you can't understand what the point of a constitution is if it's open to interpretation, I can't help you. You seriously need to review your notes from ConLaw I. [/QUOTE]

I never said that it shouldn't be open to interpretation; obviously there are ambiguities in the text that must be interpreted by the Court before applying them to the modern context. I simply believe that the type of judicial "interpretation" required to twist the 2nd Amendment into something that wouldn't prohibit a ban on all firearms is ultimately injurious to the constitution's integrity. If the Court is allowed to so liberally construe a part of the constitution as unambiguous as the 2nd Amendment, I, justifiably, fear their interpretive power in other areas of the constitution (eminent domain comes to mind).

The Court is being filled with right-wingers as of late, and if a precedent is set to allow liberal interpretation, don't think for a second that these new right-leaning justices will stick to their "strict interpretation" approach. All I ask for is that parts of the constitution that are no longer favorable in modern times be eliminated through the appropriate process.

I should also add that anyone who feels the need to bear arms as a check on the government's power is delusional. Keeping a gun in the house is no check on governmental power, and any attempt to use them against the "government" (which could be the local police or any other enforcement agency at the local, state or national level) would be met with extreme and overwhelming force. It's really a red herring argument to justify a stupid interest in keeping guns lying around.

I don't own a gun and I have no intention of ever owning one, but I think your characterization of people who do so because they fear an over-reaching government is a bit rash. Try telling the insurgents in Iraq that assault rifles are useless against the overwhelming force of the U.S. military.

I'm not a military strategist, so I really shouldn't be arguing the feasibility of an uprising with assault rifles, but I do think that if the point ever came where the government did need to be overthrown, it would be a very different environment from today, and it would be in vain for us to speculate on the practicality of an armed uprising in that hypothetical context.

EDIT: BTW, I apologize for the "retaking ConLaw" remark. I was inebriated at the time. Our argument concerns the extent of Constitutional interpretation, and is deeply rooted in philosophical beliefs that should hinge on much more than the notes we took in ConLaw. I regret saying it.

[kamome]

These were your two examples, I'm sure I could find better ones, but we'll stick to these. Take a look at the two sentence as a whole (as they are intended to be read)]

I can certainly argue that with a straight face. I think the 2nd amendment hasn't been touched as much as the 4th because of the political opposition to it, not because it's less susceptible to interpretation.

I never said that it shouldn't be open to interpretation]

I don't think the 2nd amendment is as "unambiguous" as you make it out to be. That rings of wishful thinking to me.

Also, interpreting the 2nd amendment doesn't represent the initial point on the slippery slope you fear, because the justification for interpreting the Constitution began in the days of John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison.

Lost in this discussion is the fact that conservative justices who stick to a "strict interpretivist" approach are themselves guilty of judicial activism - strict interpretation is their way of legislating conservative ideals from the bench. It's disingenuous to argue that only liberal justices are guilty of activism.

I don't own a gun and I have no intention of ever owning one, but I think your characterization of people who do so because they fear an over-reaching government is a bit rash. Try telling the insurgents in Iraq that assault rifles are useless against the overwhelming force of the U.S. military.

I'm not a military strategist, so I really shouldn't be arguing the feasibility of an uprising with assault rifles, but I do think that if the point ever came where the government did need to be overthrown, it would be a very different environment from today, and it would be in vain for us to speculate on the practicality of an armed uprising in that hypothetical context.

It's so remote a possibility it isn't even worth discussing. It won't happen. Such a justification for owning guns is dead. Period.

EDIT: BTW, I apologize for the "retaking ConLaw" remark. I was inebriated at the time. Our argument concerns the extent of Constitutional interpretation, and is deeply rooted in philosophical beliefs that should hinge on much more than the notes we took in ConLaw. I regret saying it.

Ah! So you're saying intoxication negated your intent? I'll buy that.

[Adhesive]

Lost in this discussion is the fact that conservative justices who stick to a "strict interpretivist" approach are themselves guilty of judicial activism - strict interpretation is their way of legislating conservative ideals from the bench. It's disingenuous to argue that only liberal justices are guilty of activism.

Hmm, I'm not sure I ever made the argument that only liberal justices are guilty of activism. However, when a judge, regardless of political leaning, uses strict interpretation to legislate their ideals they remain bound by the wording of the constitution. When a judge uses liberal (loose) interpretation to legislate their ideals, they are no longer binding themselves to the constitution and instead allow their personal ideals to dictate what the constitution should and shouldn't prohibit.

As to your point about an attack on the 2nd Amendment not being the initial point of the slippery slope, I agree, but, like I mentioned in previous posts, although I am quite pleased with the outcomes of the Marshall court civil rights decisions, I think many of them were just plain wrongly decided, at the expense of our constitution's integrity. I am not alone in this belief, and I'm sure you can find the argument articulated much more clearly by scholars other than myself.

It's so remote a possibility it isn't even worth discussing. It won't happen. Such a justification for owning guns is dead. Period.

Well, I guess that ends that.

[AssKissinger]

No, but they make the weak and the stupid feel powerful...

Define powerful. Guns give you the power to put deadly holes into someone who breaks into your place but they don't give you the power to travel to Europe or fire people at work.

[kurohinge1]

An Accounting of Daily Gun Deaths

They really need to hook up the organ donor scheme with these gun-lovers, especially given that over 50% of deaths are reported to be suicides, as there's a lot of perfectly good organs there going to waste.

They should have the organ donor election on gun licences (as well as driver's licences) and then ask these gun-lovers to ring the local hospital before they shoot themselves (or their "loved ones") so that some more poor bastard (or small kid, etc) who wants to live, can do so.

This way, not only could these gun-lovers improve the gene-pool by leaving it, but they could save a few lives with every death.

[kamome]

Hmm, I'm not sure I ever made the argument that only liberal justices are guilty of activism. However, when a judge, regardless of political leaning, uses strict interpretation to legislate their ideals they remain bound by the wording of the constitution. When a judge uses liberal (loose) interpretation to legislate their ideals, they are no longer binding themselves to the constitution and instead allow their personal ideals to dictate what the constitution should and shouldn't prohibit.

Strict interpretivists may give lip service to being bound by the wording of the constitution but I'm not convinced they are any less susceptible to their own political ideals. For example, in the name of "strict interpretation", conservative courts have overturned settled law on Congress's powers to legislate by reinterpreting the Commerce clause (can't remember the names of those cases, unfortunately). Whatever that means for the integrity of the Constitution, Scalia, et. al. , are guilty of the very same thing you accuse liberal courts of - allowing personal ideals to dictate what the constitution should and shouldn't prohibit.

[Adhesive]

Strict interpretivists may give lip service to being bound by the wording of the constitution but I'm not convinced they are any less susceptible to their own political ideals.

You are absolutely right, but if a strict-interpretation standard was established in the Court, which it is not, it would be much more difficult for these "goal-oriented" justices to hand down decisions based on their own ideals. They would be bound to a common meaning of the text and the extent to which they could deviate would be restricted.

For example, in the name of "strict interpretation", conservative courts have overturned settled law on Congress's powers to legislate by reinterpreting the Commerce clause (can't remember the names of those cases, unfortunately). Whatever that means for the integrity of the Constitution, Scalia, et. al. , are guilty of the very same thing you accuse liberal courts of - allowing personal ideals to dictate what the constitution should and shouldn't prohibit.

I think you are mixing up stare decisis and strict interpretation. Over-turning a liberal-interpretation and replacing it with one that more closely resembles the common meaning of the text is not counter to the idea of "strict interpretation," even if it was done to serve a particular political ideal. It may violate stare decisis ( if certain qualifications aren't met) but just because it's overturning a former interpretation and is rooted in a personal ideal doesn't put it in opposition with strict interpretation.

Now, if you are suggesting that strict-interpretivist judges are using strict interpretation when it serves them, and using liberal interpretation when it doesn't, I completely agree with you; all the justices are guilty of this and I'm totally against it. I am, however, not arguing for strict interpretation only when it serves a right-leaning justice; why would I when I'm a social liberal? What I argue for is nothing but strict interpretation. I think that by allowing loose interpretation in cases when it served the liberal agenda, regardless of how much social good it did at the time, it has allowed justices like Rehnquist and Scalia to now pick and choose when they want to be strict interpretists and when they want to use loose interpretation. That is the ultimate harm of the Marshall court decisions. It has established a precedent for very loose and broad interpretation of the text. Now, the limitations on the government hinge on how many justices one party can appoint to the Supreme Court. Instead of it being simply "The text clearly says this, the historical context it was written in clearly supports this, and it doesn't matter if a right or left-leaning justice is appointed because they will all have to read it similarly," we are left fearing who gets appointed to the Court because now anything is fair game to be interpreted differently.
BTW; most landmark cases concerning the commerce clause that I am familiar with were decided before Scalia joined the Court. You would have to be specific about the one that overturned settled law. But I have read Scalia opinions before that have strayed from his strict-interpretists philosophy, so I don't doubt you. However, again, I'm not arguing in favor of any one justice, and am instead simply saying that I believe the application of strict interpretation in our Courts would, ultimately, better serve the people and the constitution.

[IkemenTommy]

[IkemenTommy]

[emperor]

_______________________________________

Han Shot First

[Uhhuh35]

...Why anyone outside the miltary or police need a handgun is to me a sign of pretty fucked up mind.

Self Defense that's why. Plenty of stories out there about homeowners defending themselves against burglars and home invaders, or car-jackers for that matter.
The Police won't protect you, they are not your private security guards, their aren't enough of them. They are only there to take the report of your dead body in case of a shooting.
It's up to you to protect yourself.





Charles, you were at the LA Riots huh? You seem to forget about the Korean store owners who protected their property with: Guns.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Why anyone outside the miltary or police need a handgun is to me a sign of pretty fucked up mind.

There are plenty of people who enjoy target practice as a hobby. I guess they have pretty fucked up minds just like those psychos that do archery, iado, or karate.

[Charles]

Charles, you were at the LA Riots huh? You seem to forget about the Korean store owners who protected their property with: Guns.

Bullshit. I only recall one incident when a Korean store owner used guns, he went to the rooftop with a rifle and shot at anyone who approached his store. He wounded one guy who went to the store begging for them to sell him some food for his kids. The LAPD came in force to disarm and arrest the shooter, diverting police resources from other vital duties.
The riots were not suppressed by gun owners. The riots ended when the National Guard was deployed. The Governor issued orders that the Guard would be disarmed and not issued bullets.

Anyway, I thought you said you were headed for Iraq so you could shoot people. But we knew you were lying.

[Uhhuh35]

Bullshit. I only recall one incident when a Korean store owner used guns, he went to the rooftop with a rifle and shot at anyone who approached his store. He wounded one guy who went to the store begging for them to sell him some food for his kids. The LAPD came in force to disarm and arrest the shooter, diverting police resources from other vital duties.
The riots were not suppressed by gun owners. The riots ended when the National Guard was deployed. The Governor issued orders that the Guard would be disarmed and not issued bullets.
Anyway, I thought you said you were headed for Iraq so you could shoot people. But we knew you were lying.

Koreans protected their shops you gun-grabbing asshole. You have selective memory. Here's a clip showing proud Korean owners defending their stores. It's only 30 seconds so even Alzheimer's patients like you should be able comprehend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUaoil0wsyU

I took my physical last week and was medically disqualified for most positions. BUT, I can waiver for some positions. I should be signing up in late June time frame.

So maybe you could join Al-Qaeda and we could meet in the Middle-East somewhere? Wouldn't that be interesting?

[Charles]

Koreans protected their shops you gun-grabbing asshole. You have selective memory. Here's a clip showing proud Korean owners defending their stores. It's only 30 seconds so even Alzheimer's patients like you should be able comprehend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUaoil0wsyU

Yep, that's the very incident I was referring to, it happened about 6 blocks from my house. After shooting at random, one of them went up to the roof and sniped at people with a rifle. They all got arrested.

I took my physical last week and was medically disqualified for most positions. BUT, I can waiver for some positions. I should be signing up in late June time frame.

Yeah, I knew you'd have some lame excuse. I guess you'll sign up as soon as we pull out of Iraq, coward.

[Uhhuh35]

Yeah, I knew you'd have some lame excuse. I guess you'll sign up as soon as we pull out of Iraq, coward.

PM me with your e-mail. I'll send you a copy of the letter. Then I'll accept your

apology

.

[Charles]

PM me with your e-mail. I'll send you a copy of the letter. Then I'll accept your

apology

.

I'm not interested in anything but a real letter postmarked from Iraq. But I know that's never going to happen.