Does the Constitution Apply Today?

[quade 4]

Quote

It doesn't seem necessary to protect the right of marriage for all people, but depending on how long the courts take to extend Love, it could be required, albeit difficult to pass.

I said it up front, "You'll note it says nothing about God or morality. That's specifically not the job of government. " I think the Government ought to get out of the business of "marriage" altogether.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

It's actually pretty interesting how little "morality" is in the constitution. All that moral stuff was to be left to the states under their "Police Powers."

Newton's Principia Mathematica is over 300 years old, and advances have shown many of what it said to be inapplicable in a number of circumstances. But the basics are pretty good.

It's interesting that the 4th Amendment was drafted prior to the invention of the telegraph, telephone, internet, television, radio, etc. And the principles still apply. The same with the First Amendment. The Fifth.

There ARE parts that are archaic, i.e., the Third Amendment. But the Constitution still applies.

Easy Bake Ovens? What do the feds care about those except for transport in interstate commerce, which was considered in the Commerce Clause.

The system deals with matters that are not foreseen because it fits in a framework. If something isn't covered, then the Constitution can be amended.

You son't like assault weapons? Amend the Constitution! Don't like abortion? Amend it! Don't think bible thumpers should be allowed to proselytize in public? Amend it!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I think many people would like to see the right to privacy, as well as abortions, more formally codified as a right guaranteed (not granted, mind you) by the Constitution. At the moment we have virtually no protection in this regard.

I would whole heartedly aree with that.

The erosion of our ability to be free from an ever too intrusive and watchful government has been severe under this administration in the guise of "protecting" us.

I dont think it is a very far stretch for those in power to abuse the ability to gain access to personal and private communication and information for political purposes. It has already occured and it needs to stop.

We supposedly live in a society based on free speech .. there is no place in our society to put people under surveillance by our government who might disagree with those in any given administration that is currently in power . I thought we learned that lesson under Nixon.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I'm all for Hand Guns and Hunting Rifles, but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle (or a Bazooka or a "Personal Nuke").

Oh so you support the assault weapon ban.

I don't support that ban...I think I should be able to own whatever individual weapons that I may have to face from an oppressive government that is no longer following our constitution.

What she said.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm all for Hand Guns and Hunting Rifles, but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle (or a Bazooka or a "Personal Nuke").

Oh so you support the assault weapon ban.

I don't support that ban...I think I should be able to own whatever individual weapons that I may have to face from an oppressive government that is no longer following our constitution.

What she said.

Blues,
Dave

I feel I need an individual nuclear weapon to protect myself from the oppressive govt.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

It doesn't seem necessary to protect the right of marriage for all people, but depending on how long the courts take to extend Love, it could be required, albeit difficult to pass.

I said it up front, "You'll note it says nothing about God or morality. That's specifically not the job of government. " I think the Government ought to get out of the business of "marriage" altogether.

I agree and disagree at the same time. I think government ought to get out of the business of marriage altogether and simply never ask the question. I also think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights worthy of protection, and marriage falls into that set. Therefore, I'd say that protection of a right to marry could be guaranteed by the federal government, perhaps by separation of church and state authority. That is, if marriage is considered a religious activity, and a state government passes a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman, maybe the Supreme Court could knock that law down on the premise that it prohibits gay couples from practicing their religion.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm all for Hand Guns and Hunting Rifles, but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle (or a Bazooka or a "Personal Nuke").

Oh so you support the assault weapon ban.

I don't support that ban...I think I should be able to own whatever individual weapons that I may have to face from an oppressive government that is no longer following our constitution.

What she said.

Blues,
Dave

I feel I need an individual nuclear weapon to protect myself from the oppressive govt.

I'm ok with the government limiting the effective area of impact a weapon can have, e.g. those weapons that can, in one discharge, kill everything within X radius...or something like that. Of course I'd also prefer that our government work toward disarming us of *all* nuclear weapons, including those held by our military.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[downwardspiral 0]

I find it's an odd argument on 'their' part. We say we want our arms and they immediately include weapons of mass destruction in our defintition of arms. As if that somehow relates to our desire to have an AR15 or AK47 in our home.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 3,107]

> We say we want our arms and they immediately include weapons
>of mass destruction in our defintition of arms.

It sets you apart from some of the more out-there gun nuts who think that there should be no limits whatsoever on the weapons you can own. Once you get into reasonable territory it becomes a lot easier to talk about it intelligently.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

I find it's an odd argument on 'their' part. We say we want our arms and they immediately include weapons of mass destruction in our defintition of arms. As if that somehow relates to our desire to have an AR15 or AK47 in our home.

Amazon said she wanted to be able to own anything that the government could use. I think Andy's reply was his way of saying she should formulate her statements a bit more carefully.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I feel I need an individual nuclear weapon to protect myself from the oppressive govt.

I'm ok with the government limiting the effective area of impact a weapon can have, e.g. those weapons that can, in one discharge, kill everything within X radius...or something like that. Of course I'd also prefer that our government work toward disarming us of *all* nuclear weapons, including those held by our military.

One differentiation ([Andy9o8] may remember this from customary international law and laws of war/laws of armed conflict) is dicriminate versus indiscriminate weapons. A gun is a discriminate weapon. Nuclear, chemical, biological, & radiological weapons are indiscriminate between combatants and non-combatants.

Within the US, there are federal laws, e.g., Title V of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (PL 104-132) & USC 18.I.113B Section 2332 Use of weapons of mass destruction which establishes that anyone "without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction— ... shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

Criminal & other civil penalties vary significantly around the planet.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[PeregrineFalcon 0]

Quote

I find it's an odd argument on 'their' part. We say we want our arms and they immediately include weapons of mass destruction in our defintition of arms. As if that somehow relates to our desire to have an AR15 or AK47 in our home.

It's the reverse of the NRA argument. They argue that if the government takes awaay my right to own an AK47, the door will be open to take away my hunting rifle and revolver. If that argument is valid (and I'm not saying it is) then the converse is valid where someone asks, "What level of weapons are allowed? If you allow an AK47, the next thing they'll allow are cannons, then nukes."

It's the same argument. I don't agree with the argument but both sides use it.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I feel I need an individual nuclear weapon to protect myself from the oppressive govt.

Ok fine.. go for it..

Get the raw material

refine it ( you may not live thru this part of the process)

Design your own gadget.

Build it... again.. you may not survive the attempt.


It is not impossible.....expensive.. time consuming.. and takes a bit more brain power than most people have.. but.. whats stopping you??

[Andy9o8 2]

Why do you presume anything has stopped me?

[Amazon 7]

The US Government has a higher level of respect toward nuclear powers. I still see you posting as an agrieved party rahter than negotiating from a position of power


Think of the Movie...."The Mouse That Roared"

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Design your own gadget.

"Gadget" ...

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

I used to have a geiger counter... I know a few places with "elevated" radiation levels

[klingeme 1]

Quote

Quote

I also don't think that they thought doctors killing babies should be a protected by the contitution.

An hopefully after a few more justices get appointed, they can correct the decision of the Roe V Wade case.


From the fabric of the original Constitution and its first 10 Amendments, I think it's apparent that the Framers recognized that there would be issues addressed in the future that either did not present themselves at the time of the drafting, or that were not considered, or even conceived of, by the Framers (those who drafted the original Constitution) at the time of the drafting. That's why the Framers made provisions for amendment, while at the same time making such amendment cumbersome. They also made clear that the Constitution was not the sole law of the land; there would be a Congress to enact specific laws; and a Supreme Court to interpret, in the full passage of time, both the Constitution itself and Congress's laws. I'm aware of no authority that supports a historical proposition that the Framers considered the issue of abortion, one way or the other, at the time the Constitution was debated, drafted or ratified.

[klingeme 1]

Quote

which is reasonable but assault weapon bans and the high capacity magazine ban (CA) are not.

Who decisdes what is reasonable if I want to make an A bomb "for my protection"?

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>If there is anything fundamental I'd like to see changed it would be our process of elections. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/...es_Electoral_College


No shit, even Russia has a better system than we do, a simple majority. The part that sucks the most is that state electors don't have to go the way that their citizens vote, whcih could actually overturn an election. A representative Democracy is worse than a Parlaimentary Monarchy. I would like to say that there would be an uprising if a state's electors opposed the majority of that state's voters and issued the electoral votes the other way, but as we have seen, teh American people are too weak to do a thing, just brush it off and wait for next time.

[klingeme 1]

Quote

I find it's an odd argument on 'their' part. We say we want our arms and they immediately include weapons of mass destruction in our defintition of arms. As if that somehow relates to our desire to have an AR15 or AK47 in our home.

OK, How about a Bazooka or just some basic land mines, Not mass destruction, so they should be allowed?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Who decisdes what is reasonable if I want to make an A bomb "for my protection"?

If "you" are an inhabitant of the US, the US Congress has done that. (See my reply to Dave above.)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't think the founding fathers would think that is was alright for someone to make their own Nuclear Bomb, or own a "Personal" Bazooka, or maybe even an assault rifle. But then they were worried about the English trying to take back their land and they needed to be "Armed". I think it is much less of an issue now, and the only question is where to draw the line. I don't think that even the Die Hard NRA Supporter thinks I should be able to make my own personal Nuke, but they want to be able to own an M-60 if they want to.

I'm all for Hand Guns and Hunting Rifles, but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle (or a Bazooka or a "Personal Nuke").

I also don't think that they thought doctors killing babies should be a protected by the contitution.

>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm all for Hand Guns and Hunting Rifles, but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle (or a Bazooka or a "Personal Nuke").


Yes, I'm for teh non-assault variety of rifles, like the friendly 308 or perhaps the gregarious 30.06. If you knew firearms you would understand that most assault weapons are smaller caliber than the most radical, longest reaching rifles not considered assault weapons. Weatherby rifles are fucking insane, they make a .44 mag look like a water pistol. And a .223 or even 762x39 isn't anywhere near that of a 308 or larger. These so-called assault rifles are that because of mag capacity and styling/color, nothing else and unless we're talking M-60, a full auto 308, most other assault rifles end at 762x39, a clumsy NATO round associated with the AK-47.

Many so-called assault weapons are 9mm, .223, maybe .45, etc.... middle of the road calibers. A lot of hype with less bitethan advertised.

[quade 4]

Quote

One differentiation ([Andy9o8] may remember this from customary international law and laws of war/laws of armed conflict) is dicriminate versus indiscriminate weapons. A gun is a discriminate weapon. Nuclear, chemical, biological, & radiological weapons are indiscriminate between combatants and non-combatants.

Within the US, there are federal laws, e.g., Title V of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (PL 104-132) & USC 18.I.113B Section 2332 Use of weapons of mass destruction which establishes that anyone "without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction— ... shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

Criminal & other civil penalties vary significantly around the planet.

VR/Marg

Can the logic of that then be applied to other indiscriminate weapons beyond; nuclear, chemical, biological, & radiological as they pertain to personal use?

For instance, it would be nearly impossible to say that a fragmentation grenade isn't an indiscriminate weapon. If your intended target is standing next to an innocent person, it's logical to assume that the innocent person will also be harmed.

So, let's invent a new weapon and see if the standard would apply.

Portable Laser "gun". The weapon by it's very nature must acquire a target before being fired if used properly. Further, as long as it hits it's target, no other object is directly effected. Obviously a discriminate weapon. Maybe can be owned by a private citizen.

Portable Laser Wide Area of Effect (scanning) "gun". Weapon scans in general area of target 15° to each side of where it is being specifically aimed. (Kinda like a bar code scanner at a supermarket.) Slices any target over which it scans. Indiscriminate and not allowed for use by average citizen? What do you think?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Some would like to change the presidential election method. Not me, but I understand the appeal.

I'm with quade on this one, what benefit does the electoral college have. It just plain sucks no matter what your political views are. Tell me any good reason that a president with the popular vote should not get into office because of a technicality. I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious as to why anybody would defend the current system.

So lets say you move to Texas, and you plan on voting for Obama. Why waste your time going to the polls? I can't understand why somebody wouldn't want their vote to count nationally if they lived in a state where the majority of people didn't agree with them.

I'm sorry, I'm very passionate about protecting the second ammendment as are some that would like to destroy it, but are there really that many people out there that think the electoral college should be preserved?