|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| lastat06513 wrote: |
The u.s. constitution has been interpreted in a hundred different ways for over two hundred years and the way it is interpreted now is not the way it was interpret before and will not be the same in its interpretation in the future.
It is wrong to say that banning guns is almost as impossible as banning the use of the automobile. Guns can be banned in all form if the there is enough support for such legislation, without the need to change the Bill of Rights, in which the 2nd amendment has been interpreted by many in acadamia as being the right to own guns while being a part of a well-organized, well-regulated militia. It is the gun lobbyists like the scummy fascists in the NRA that keep guns in circulation.
One of the steps the Connecticut state legislature is working on right now is judicial reform with one provision that will make any crime committed within the state of CT with a gun punishable by life imprisonment and in many cities in CT, the police is publicly announcing their planned gun buy-back program where people could turn in their guns with no questions asked.
I think that people are just getting fed up completely with all these high-profile gun crimes being committed and are getting pissed because the government is dragging its feet in doing something about it........sad....... |
Again with the perversion of "well organized and well regulated".
The only word that you stated that is in the 2nd amendment is "well
regulated' organized is not in there. (Inductive interpretation)
Academia or even macadamia, can interpret all they want the final
interpretation lies with the SJC, so far they don't agree with you or the
academia. Academia is not in the constitution neither is macadamia.
It is the right of the people it is not a right or a power relegated to the
states, laws have been struck down by the SJC for that very reason.
Either there is a constitution or there isn't.
The idea of gun control is not my issue, my issue is with adhering to the
provisions of the constitution, and utilizing the remedies as defined within
the same constitution.
The remedies are there, either use them or scrap the entire thing.
The constitution ain't some multiple use dish rag.
Yes, the buy back program commonly referred to on Winter Street as the
handgun upgrade program.
Hand in your gun for cash then buy a better one at the next corner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I say Tomato and you say tomato...
As I said and as will keep on saying, the constitution is going to be interpreted differently from person to person, era to era.....
It would be funny to stick to the same interpretation as it did 200 years before, when the newly founded u.s. was up against the British, Indiginous tribes uprooted by the newly formed American government, the Spanish and in some instances the French.
Not to mention that more than 50% of the population was living in the rural frontier, vulnerable to frequent attacks from all sides and the only defense these settlers (or occupiers) had was the town militia- which was usually made up of about 50 or so men armed with muskets and flintlocked pistols.
Also related to the fact the u.s. didn't even have a full-time military until after 1787 after the constitution was ratified to not only keep the south from breaking away from the union, but ALSO keep New England from breaking away as well (the u.s. was in total shambles, contrary to what many people would say).
The second amendment of the bill of rights clearly states:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
So...am I perfectly right to say my assumption is correct? To some, no. But to say that you are perfectly correct? Nope.....it is all determined by personal and institutional interpretation......
The supreme court is made up of people serving the interests of the people (and sometimes parties) that put them on the bench. Can you say they are impartial and unbiased? Hell no!
They make laws that suit the interests of the people, but they also rule on laws that act in the interest of BIG Business and heavily-connected special interest groups, such as the NRA....
Are you in the US right now?
Do you watch shows such as "Meet the Press", "The Morning Debate" and such that have been talking about this since V-tech earlier this year and how it fits right in with the constitutional debate and they are also saying that the only reason congress or even the president doesn't act on legislation to tighen the sales and distribution of guns in the US is because of the heavily funded special interest groups and the fact that many of these groups fund the Republican campaign during congressional and presidential elections.......almost as much (actually now far exceeds) the contributions made by Big Tabacco.....not to mention that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to get on these guys' bad side because of the fact that gun manufacturing is a huge, multi-million dollar industry in some states (including Connecticut) and tightening regulations on guns would put alot of people out of work......and make them unhappy voters......
Oh! I forgot......
I went to the Yale University Library and went to the Rare Book Section and found a 19th Century copy of the Webster Dictionary and the word "regulated" back then meant "something that can be organized and controlled" 
Thanx for the debate, it is fun and exhilarating...
Have a nice day  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wangjabyeong
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i agree with the idea that korea and other countries which have used strict laws to control gun use, seem to produce safer societies as a result. one person pointed out that these killings will be minimised in the future through stronger controls and punishments, but the fact is that these maniacs will always be able to possess a gun if they really want to, and the punishment is useless if they commit suicide once they have murdered 30 or so ppl. i think it is for the greater good that ppl who use guns for sport or pleasure can sacrifice gun use for the safety of their community. is that too much to ask? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My defence here is not of the 2nd amendment in particular, but of the
constitution and the bill of rights as a whole. Well, maybe by default I
defend the 2nd, but only so far as it pertains to the sanctity of the
constitution as a whole. Would you want induced into the right of free
speech, that the Internet was not around at the time of the founding and
is not considered free speech.
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I'm all for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and subsequent gun control
legislation.
It should not be so hard to enact a bill for this this purpose as I outlined
in my earlier post. I just don't like the mucky mucks legislating in
contradiction to the constitution. Let the constitution stand and repeal the
2nd amendment by the methods a prescribed in the constitution.
Let the words speak for themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
