Guns or not Guns

[marharth]

@ HeyYou:

 

YOU are the one who is mincing definitions: assault weapons do not represent assault rifles. Assault rifles fall under assault weapons, kind of like how a square is a type of a rectangle. And of course it's not easy for an 'average Joe' to get an assault weapon (well, quite easy in certain states), but there is still the option to own one.

 

Back to the militia question and why civilians need arms, if that's the case, everyone should have firearms then, or even issued one (at least limited to fight-worthy adults). If not, it contradicts the militia's goal. Just noting.

It does not contradict it, most people want to own a gun. In this case guns do not have to be forcefully issued to have a effective militia.

[dazzerfong]

If it's like that, then it's not a very effective militia. And the reason why most people purchase a firearm, most people want to own a gun, it's this which generates a problem: how do you differentiate between those who just want to own one, and someone who wants to harm someone with it?

[HeyYou]

If it's like that, then it's not a very effective militia. And the reason why most people purchase a firearm, most people want to own a gun, it's this which generates a problem: how do you differentiate between those who just want to own one, and someone who wants to harm someone with it?

 

It is impossible to tell. Unless of course, the prospective purchaser actually states "Hey, I need a nice gun so I can blow my wifes head off." Or some such. For most 'long' guns, there is no waiting period, there is no background check, you can walk into the gun shop, hand over your cash, and walk out with an AR-15. (this does vary somewhat from state to state, but, not overmuch.) For pistols, there generally IS a waiting period, which also varies by state..... and also background checks. No firearm sales to convicted felons. Even if it was a non-violent crime. (say, embezzling.....) In this, as in all things, "intent" is not something folks wear on their sleeve, or carry in their wallet.

[Ghogiel]

[hoofhearted4]

i havent read the thread since my last post, mostly because im sure its going in circles, but one thing i wanted to say that i thought of

 

i remember some ppl saying something along the lines of "guns dont prevent someone from being hurt. what are the chances you are able to actually grab your gun, possibly switch off the safety, aim, and fire, under all that pressure and split second decisions, before an assailant is able to attack you."

 

and to that i say, ill take my chances. i have a far better chance, substantially better chance, astronomical even, of performing all those tasks, under pressure, in the heat of the moment, then anyone without a gun does. a gun is a hell of a lot more likely to save my life if i have one then if i dont.

[lukertin]

You speak of Thomas Jefferson as a founding father in the context of the Constitution. Whether or not you classify him as a founding father is irrelevant because he has nothing to do with the Constitution, and bringing him up in that context is misleading. He had nothing to do with the Constitution, input no value into it, and to call upon him as some sort of grand arbiter or specter whose shadow looms over Constitutional interpretation is a red herring.

 

Taking my argument out of context and in a direction neither of us were heading toward is rather disingenuous as well.

Who's taking your argument out of context? You said clearly "No, Thomas Jefferson is not a founding father" etc etc (does it mean anything that you didn't capitalize Founding Fathers, too, or is it mere happenstance? Does that show a general disregard for the subject or merely a lack of care? I would suspect someone who flippantly uses the word "disingenuous" to know that Founding Fathers is capitalized, and to know what the term means, which I'm starting to think that you don't).

 

 

I speak of Thomas Jefferson as a Founding Father, like the rest of the world. For you to take that man, who did so much in the shaping of the United States of America, and disregard him as a Founding Father simply because for a short period of time he wasn't physically present, is mindbogglingly anal-retentive. You have clearly set up your own set of criteria for who is and who is not a Founding Father and hat's okay for you, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the way the rest of the world looks at this subject.

 

Acting this way, you simply disregard everything else he ever did, as well as the vast majority of public opinion that speaks contrarily to the line you have drawn for yourself. You are, in fact, the first person I've ever heard that would exclude Thomas Jefferson from the group of Founding Fathers. I find it an almost...heretical...notion.

 

I gave the quote because I had it handy and it's a good quote, period, that reflects some of the ideas of the times by one of the men who shaped them. You see, I like to make connections and widen the picture. You seem instead to be a person that likes to draw lines between this and that, and then discuss the merits lines that you've drawn. Now, that's all fine and dandy as distinctions are important, but I will call you out when you come up with something like "TJ is not a founding father" because that's just _____ based on one of the lines that you personally have drawn and doesn't reflect at all how US history is taught and recognized by the vast majority of its teachers and proponents.

 

I do understand the lines you're drawing and I see your point (beyond the TJ /= Founding Father thing which is, let's be honest, nonsense) but I prefer to be less disambiguous when trying to feel the spirit of the times. Sympathy involves unification, not division, and treating Thomas Jefferson as some kind of independent rogue that is so vastly different from his colleagues is rather confused.

 

You think he had nothing to do with this argument because he wasn't there when it was signed? Okay, you think that way.

 

This is from the Library of Congress:

"Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic."

 

So much for "he had nothing to do with it", huh?

 

Even taking everything you've said as true, you still haven't justified why it is allowable to state that the Intent of the Founders governs, and that intent can be found in the views of Thomas Jefferson, which are superior or at least equal to, to views of people who were actually present at the Constitutional Convention. (For your information, there are two generally recognized classifications of Founding Fathers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_fathers_of_the_United_States], those who signed the Declaration, and those who were present at the Constitutional Convention. You were clearly referencing the latter classification in your discussion of Constitutional law.)

 

So he shaped the confines of the government and defined the powers of the Constitution? So did Chief Justice John Marshall, and various other Supreme Court Justices, does anybody calls them Founding Fathers? Patrick Henry was instrumental in the American Revolution, as was Paul Revere. Do we look to their political viewpoints for guidance on interpreting the US Constitution?

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Even taking everything you've said as true, you still haven't justified why it is allowable to state that the Intent of the Founders governs, and that intent can be found in the views of Thomas Jefferson, which are superior or at least equal to, to views of people who were actually present at the Constitutional Convention. (For your information, there are two generally recognized classifications of Founding Fathers [http://en.wikipedia...._United_States], those who signed the Declaration, and those who were present at the Constitutional Convention. You were clearly referencing the latter classification in your discussion of Constitutional law.)

 

So he shaped the confines of the government and defined the powers of the Constitution? So did Chief Justice John Marshall, and various other Supreme Court Justices, does anybody calls them Founding Fathers? Patrick Henry was instrumental in the American Revolution, as was Paul Revere. Do we look to their political viewpoints for guidance on interpreting the US Constitution?

You'd be better off taking it as true, since it is.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/whistling.gifIt's not my information. It's readily available to anyone with the internet.

As far as intent goes, I am not the one that says intent is important...constitutional scholars do, as well as judges when interpreting laws and such. I am only relaying their methods. That's how they do things, and it makes sense, especially when large periods of time pass. Details change (drawn lines) but the spirit remains.

Once again, you're trying to draw a line and make a distinction (or in your second paragraph, it seems you just want to muddy the waters, the other use of a dividing line). Go ahead and dissect Jefferson. It wont' change anything. Bring in other people that are obviously not meaningful in the discussion, too, if you want, but it might seem like you're grasping at straws...

The menu is not the meal, or better in this case, the piece is not the puzzle. I illustrated a piece of the puzzle, and it seems you want to invalidate the puzzle by over-deliberating on a single piece. A single piece can tell you a lot about a puzzle, but I don't ever remember putting forth the piece as the puzzle.

[lukertin]

Out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices on the bench, only one (J. Thomas) actively looks to intent of the Founding Fathers and lets that control his opinion on the issue. None the liberal justices really care about Founder's Intent, Scalia doesn't believe in intent external to the literal words appearing on the document, which leaves Alito and Roberts, neither of whom have shown support to Justice Thomas' interpretation of the Constitution time and time again, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn being a very recent example. How lonely it is at the top for considering founder's intent in matters of Constitutional interpretation...not even the Conservative Justices want to use it as guidance.

 

Again, if even taking everything you said as true, you have failed to justify why the intent of the Founding Fathers governs, and that Thomas Jefferson's intent governs on a level at least equal to James Madison, or Alexander Hamilton, or any of the other signing delegates at the Constitutional Convention.

 

You also incorrectly characterized how judges take intent into consideration, because they certainly don't consider the thoughts of people not directly involved (read: voting, amending, or proposing power) in the drafting process. They never have, and they never will.

[Aurielius]

@Wizard of Atlantis and lukertin

Though I love a good constitutional debate, have not both of you lost sight of the topic "Guns or not Guns"?

I am all in favor of this continuing but might I suggest the title to a new thread.."Is Jefferson relevant to the Framing of the Constitution?"

[grannywils]

Well Aurielius my friend, this is yet another time where I must agree. Although I believe you are aware that I have very definite opinions on the subject of Thomas Jefferson and his influence on the origination of our government and the framing of our Constitution, this debate was very specifically intended to be about guns. Period the end. Perhaps your are correct, since there seem to be differing opionions on the other topic maybe it might be a worthy subject for another thread.