My current view of US politics

[Mister Emu]

These are not moderate judges who see the constitution in a more fluid way that adjusts to modernity.

That's a radical take, not a moderate one.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is sort of fascinating to be witness to the self-inflicted decadence of the USA by way of the alt-right and its accomplices, both active and passive.

Good thing I have a huge tolerance for horror.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a radical take, not a moderate one.

I am not so sure. Times change. The writers of the Constitution new it. We can both add and effectively remove amendments as the times see fit. I am not proposing it, but the Second Amendment could be removed if the anti-gun sentimentality got strong enough.

 

[F1fan]

That's a radical take, not a moderate one.

Then supreme court justices have an historical pattern of being radical. Only some conservative justices try to interpret the constitution as originalists, which is a rather paradoxical thing to do. How do you make decisions of a right from 1789 when the technology has changed? How does a right established when the highest tech gun was a musket, and the writers had no idea machine guns spitting out 600 bullets a minute would be invented? As noted machine guns were banned in the 1930s. Assault rifles were banned in the 1990s for a short time. These decisions were made for public safety and stability. How should the SC rule about guns? They have to think in modern terms. They aren't going to limit the guns the public can own to an 18th century musket. So even the origin lists have had to interpret the constitution in regards to modernity. This is part of their job.

 

[Mister Emu]

I am not so sure. Times change. The writers of the Constitution new it.

That's why we have the amending process. If times change such that the constitution must change, then we change it. If you can't get enough support to change it, that's that. The country doesn't want to get rid of, or add, anything.

If you don't want an America full of guns, you have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, not advance enough judges that pretend it doesn't mean what it does.

They have to think in modern terms.

That's anarchy, there's no metric for "modern terms" of interpretation, it means nothing. Law must be stable so long as it is codified, the only way it can be stable is if interpretation is rooted in the context and intention of the authors at the time of writing it.

 

[F1fan]

That's why we have the amending process. If times change such that the constitution must change, then we change it. If you can't get enough support to change it, that's that. The country doesn't want to get rid of, or add, anything.

The thing is if the USA needed to amend the constitution every time we make progressive steps it would be cumbersome. If the majority of citizens agree with a certain set of what is correct for our nation, whether in rights or public safety, then there are other means, like congress and the courts. The ban on the public owning machine guns has lasted for 90 years without a problem and no need to amend the constitution.

If you don't want an America full of guns, you have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, not advance enough judges that pretend it doesn't mean what it does.

Well there are no more militias so it wouldn't be a bad idea to eliminate the 2nd amendment. It had its purpose and that purpose is obsolete.

The irony about gun rights advocates, who aren't in militias, is having guns for personal safety. What is the threat they feel? Criminal with guns. So this has become a self-perpetuating problem where the prevalence of guns means the response is more guns.

That's anarchy

It's nothing like anarchy.

there's no metric for "modern terms" of interpretation, it means nothing.

It's up to the justice to interpret how they want. This approach is what confirmation hearings should reveal and only the most moderate of judges be confirmed.

Law must be stable so long as it is codified, the only way it can be stable is if interpretation is rooted in the context and intention of the authors at the time of writing it.

Well the intention of the 2nd amendment was to establish rights for citizens to own guns in order to form militias for the protection of the state. So by your standard even Scalia was wrong. To interpret the amendment literally only people in militias should be able to claim a right to own and bear guns. If Jim isn't part of a militia, but claims he has the right to own a gun, law enforcement can ask him to verify what militia he belongs to. He has none, so the right is inapplicable.

No where in the 2nd amendment does it say citizens have the right to own military style guns because they are insecure about their manhood.

 

[Mister Emu]

The thing is if the USA needed to amend the constitution every time we make progressive steps it would be cumbersome.

It's supposed to be cumbersome. Messing with the rights, privileges, powers, and guarantees in the constitution isn't done on a whim or lark, it's the result of long standing, near-unanimous popular movement.

If the majority of citizens agree with a certain set of what is correct for our nation, whether in rights or public safety, then there are other means, like congress and the courts.

Those are not legitimate means to alter the fundamental power structure of the nation. Only the people, in or close to unanimity, as represented by their state legislatures have that right. Congress doesn't have that authority, the courts don't have that authority.

Well there are no more militias so it wouldn't be a bad idea to eliminate the 2nd amendment. It had its purpose and that purpose is obsolete.

Alright, then campaign to remove it. When you do, then you can take the guns away. Otherwise they stay.

BTW, do you live/travel exclusively in urban environments? There are plenty of militias out there in the sticks.

What is the threat they feel? Criminal with guns.

I don't care what the criminal is armed with. You think I want to get in knife fights or bow shoot outs?

It's nothing like anarchy.

It's precisely anarchy; "modern thinking" is an empty term, it has no fixed meaning nor is there any metric by which to determine legitimate modern thinking that we ought to apply. Anyone can call anything "modern".

Well the intention of the 2nd amendment was to establish rights for citizens to own guns in order to form militias for the protection of the state. So by your standard even Scalia was wrong. To interpret the amendment literally only people in militias should be able to claim a right to own and bear guns. If Jim isn't part of a militia, but claims he has the right to own a gun, law enforcement can ask him to verify what militia he belongs to. He has none, so the right is inapplicable.

You should read the founding fathers'. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." You are the militia, I am the militia, the people are all inherently militia, and that's why the people, each and every one of us, has the right to bear arms. Those arms are intended to be of the sort necessary to supply a military operation.

 

[F1fan]

It's supposed to be cumbersome. Messing with the rights, privileges, powers, and guarantees in the constitution isn't done on a whim or lark, it's the result of long standing, near-unanimous popular movement.

My point was that the supreme court and legislative branch will determine laws and if they are constitutional, often when the laws and subjects are not in the constitution. We can't just add things to the constitution every time we pass a law. The constitution is a broad road map, that happened to have been written when slavery was legal and women could not vote.

Those are not legitimate means to alter the fundamental power structure of the nation. Only the people, in or close to unanimity, as represented by their state legislatures have that right. Congress doesn't have that authority, the courts don't have that authority.

Power works the same on the state and federal levels. They just have different limits of authority. About half the states allow abortion services and until congress passes a law to ban it in every state, or allow it in every state, it will be a state issue.

Alright, then campaign to remove it. When you do, then you can take the guns away. Otherwise they stay.

there's no way the republicans would allow that.

BTW, do you live/travel exclusively in urban environments? There are plenty of militias out there in the sticks.

If you are referring to those unregulated yahoos running around in the woods in military surplus, they are not militias in the 2nd amendment sense.

I don't care what the criminal is armed with. You think I want to get in knife fights or bow shoot outs?

Rational people don't want to get into fights.

It's precisely anarchy; "modern thinking" is an empty term, it has no fixed meaning nor is there any metric by which to determine legitimate modern thinking that we ought to apply. Anyone can call anything "modern".

Are you Amish? What era are you living in that you are so confused about what modern means?

You should read the founding fathers'. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." You are the militia, I am the militia, the people are all inherently militia, and that's why the people, each and every one of us, has the right to bear arms. Those arms are intended to be of the sort necessary to supply a military operation.

That applies to 1789, not to 2022. Today every state has a national guard.

 

[Mister Emu]

My point was that the supreme court and legislative branch will determine laws and if they are constitutional, often when the laws and subjects are not in the constitution.

You are conflating separate things. I'm not talking about the introduction of new laws, I'm talking about changing how we understand the powers and limitations of the federal government and, through the 14th amendment, in some instances the states. That is, how we understand the constitution.

there's no way the republicans would allow that.

Then you don't have the support required to do so, and it doesn't change.

Rational people don't want to get into fights.

Indeed, but still a non-sequitur. It doesn't have anything to do with me saying that the weapon an assailant has doesn't really factor into my ownership of a gun for home defense. I want my gun whether they have a gun, knife, blackjack, or just their fists.

Are you Amish? What era are you living in that you are so confused about what modern means?

Just recently, I've stated that my view is that human rights applying to all humans, without regards to their stage of development is the modern thought, based in the progress of ethical development, universal human rights, and the sciences informing of us of the truth of the humanity of lives right down to conception. That the opposite view, that humans of certain levels of development are not deserving of rights is a primitive belief based in the ignorance of the past. Now, I'm sure you disagree with that and that's not the point. What compelling argument do you offer that my view is in fact not modern?

That applies to 1789, not to 2022.

This applies to 2022, as part of the US federal code: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States"