Re: safety and politics
 

On the subject of people's rights to bear nuclear arms, and the right of the country to limit individuals' right to bear arms, I have one relevant quote: "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". In other words, when the Constitution seems to imply something that would clearly destroy public order, it doesn't mean that.

Now, if all people are part of the militia, what if you tell some person "Mr. Militia, your job is to direct traffic down on the corner." The militia person says, "yes, well, I am not going to direct it with a whistle, I am going to direct it with my machine gun, based on my Constitutional right to bear arms, just as I have the right to carry my machine gun while going on White House tours or visiting my local elementary school".

This is of course absurd. To the extent that many of us are part of some kind of honorary Militia, we are subject to military discipline. As militiapeople, we don't have the right to bear arms wherever we want to bear them. To the extent that the Constitution appears to say that we can bear arms in public courts or Dodge City or despite the fact that we have been judged dangerous (where in the Constitution does it say that homicidal maniacs can't bear arms??) the Constitution is fairly interpreted not to mean that.

The reason there are judges is that many legal interpretations are NOT common sense, but the result of centuries of legal and practical experience.

Re: safety and politics
 

Unlimited arms ownership would not clearly destroy public order in the 18th century. So it wasn't a suicide pact then. If circumstances or technology have changed so that the Constitution, as currently amended, is a suicide pact, that means we need to fix it by amendment, not pretend it has magically fixed itself. (Nor, of course, go our way, accepting the implication and yet doing nothing.)Is this example really meaningful?

From the Constitution, Article I, Section 8:And from Article II, Section 2:So "what if you tell some person" to go direct traffic? Unless Congress has called out (or authorized the calling out of) the militia into service, and the "you" in question is in the chain of command from the President through the state officers, they'll probably flip you the bird and carry on their way.

You mean the bit where you suppose that (granting a traffic direction assignment by a proper authority) one would "direct traffic with a machine gun", rather than the non-absurd choice to carry their machine gun while directing traffic? Yes, patently absurd.

Fortunately, any such absurdity would actually be rectified by a direct order to use the provided mil-spec cop-whistle. And, given the circumstances in which the militia are activated, they would probably be permitted and encouraged, if not ordered, to carry an automatic weapon while doing so.

Certainly, "when called into the actual Service of the United States"; at such times, we're certainly obligated to pick up or lay down such arms as ordered by our superior officers. (Or during state-established training.) But the second amendment would be completely meaningless if it only applied in actual service -- since the President (and his officers, and state officers) can order you to bear arms, it's hardly necessary to guarantee a right to follow those orders!

The point is, in those times when the militia are to be called out (insurrection, invasion, or violation of laws on a scale unmanageable by ordinary law enforcement), there's not likely time to contract for the production of millions of rifles, or for the training in their use from no knowledge. Because a well regulated (including equipment and training) militia is necessary to the security of any free state (in the sense of a nation; not one of the United States), the right to keep and bear arms was protected. (In the hopes that citizens called up for service in an emergency would be in some measure self-equipped and self-trained, and further trained to Federal discipline by the states, and so ready to be whipped into an effective fighting force in a short time.)

If I understand this argument correctly, you're effectively saying: Because it's undesirable that the Constitution should mean certain things, it is "fair" to interpret it not to mean those things. That's a viewpoint with some popularity, but I don't think it meshes well with the Constitution itself. There's only one reason for including Article V:The authors of the Constitution plainly expected it to be interpreted literally, according to the actual text, not according to what reading seems most desirable or reasonable to those interpreting. If they intended the interpretation to be separated from the text, there would be no point in providing for amendments to the text. (Moreover, the Constitution is far more specific in many areas, both as written and as amended, than would be necessary or profitable for something to be read loosely.)

Where this practical experience contradicts the Constitution, the solution is not to disregard (or use alternative interpretations of) the Constitution itself. From Article VI:A plain order of precedence is established, and the Constitution, with no indication of special interpretation different from any other law or treaty made under it, is at the top, and is binding on those judges. I see no provision for any of common sense, legal experience, or practical experience to trump the Constitution. (Not to say they are unimportant; common sense and practical experience allow judges to resolve legal ambiguities and to make decisions specifically left to them by the law, and legal experience acts to avoid casual misinterpretation of laws by considering what other judges have previously interpreted them, and to give consistency to the application of common sense and practical experience. Merely that none of them can properly sway a judge from the nonambiguous literal meaning of the relevant laws, where such exists.)

Re: safety and politics
 

What scares me is your view on the world.

There is no iraqi army that climbs into some old boats from WW2-Russia, travels across the oceans undetected, lands on american soil and fights its way through US-Soldiers and a whole bunch of NATO-allies all in hi tech, just to be stopped by you and your fellow men pointing a gun at them.

If this is really your argument to bear guns, it scares me.
It scares me not because of your gun (I'm out of reach from your gun), but it scares me because you have the right to vote and thus you can indirectly decide the course of your government. And THEY have the big guns, that could reach me over here.
But, I'm not even directly afraid of these big guns (yet), but what kind of havoc they wreak in the entire world, which HAS an effect on my life (economically, politically and probably even military).

Re: safety and politics
 

See my other post.

Plus: Why shouldn't the north Korean government be allowed to have nuclear weapons, then. Its for all our safety isn't it?
Ah, you say, but those people over there are evil and dangerous. Hmm, lets see, countries invaded in the last couple of years: North Korea=0; USA=2
Well, yes, you might reply, but we do it for all the right reasons: To bring democracy and to defend ourselves. Also, we are the land of the free, god's own country and the greatest nation in the world.
Uh, yes, that are some really valid reasons. Good thing the bad guys do not claim to have good reasons.
Oh, wait. Doing God's/Allah's work, purifying the society, defending against the western aggressor (Arabians) or bringing the power to the people and work together for everybody's greater good respectively (communist north Korea) sound very similar.
But, you say, they get it all wrong. And your neighbour agrees with you and your president tells you that you are an terrorist if you don't agree. So that's settled then...

Don't get me wrong. I don't want power in either arabic nor communists hand. But many of you US-Americans seem to be as fanatic and blind as they are.

Remember: "With great power comes great responsibility" ;-)

And that (responsibility for those affected by the power) seems to have gone lost in the US after the cold war ended.
During the cold war, the US hat to be "good" and responsible, so their allies would stay at their side. Now, being the only superpower this does not seem to be necessary anymore.

I have great hopes in Obama, but there has to be an awakening in the US's public (and the European's, too) to make a better world again.

Damn lot of words for not wanting to explain myself... ;-)

Re: safety and politics
 

Nonsense.

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment defines who is a citizen of the United States: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The second sentence of the 14th Amendment provides a limit on the power of the States: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note, this does not read: "No State, District, or Territory of the United States shall make or enforce any law ...". It reads "No State ...". Thus, it does not apply to DC or Territories such as Puerto Rico. You might think it SHOULD apply to DC and Territories, but in that case, feel free to propose a Constitutional Amendment to that affect. But the clear wording of the Amendment is that it applies to States. "State, District, or Territory" is clearly different from "State". To read the former into the Amendment is to say you can ignore the clear wording of the Constitution and instead read it the way you think it SHOULD read.

Re: safety and politics
 

If we are to assume that word "State" is to literally mean the actual existence of "Statehood".. and thus Washington DC is not bound by the use of the term "State".. then explain to me how something that is not a "State" could be covered under the term "United States"?

Especially when you finish the phrase: "United States of America". What I read there then is that Washington DC would be a "District of America" or "DC of America"... But the term "United States" implies a collection of "States" that are "United" under a common goal of some form and are together in some issue somewhere. If something is not actually a legitimate "State" .. then it would be unable to exist under the "United States".

So therefore we must realize the writers of the Constitution were using the term to mean the States as a whole.. as Benson (VERY nice post by the way.. I desperately need a Thanks button for that one) so eloquently pointed out:

ETA: Lets examine the definition of the word "State":
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/State

Re: safety and politics
 

Because Article I, Section 8, provides for such a District to be the Seat of the Government of the United States. The Constitution defines what is meant by the "United States of America".


According to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

and from Article V:

"no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Thus, the District of Columbia is NOT a State, within the meaning of the Constitution, since it does not have two Senators, has not Consented to give up it's right (if it were a State) to have two Senators, and, in fact, actively seeks to become a State in order to be represented in the Senate as well as the House of Representatives.

Re: safety and politics
 

So, some of you in this thread actually believe that since the Constitution doesn't expressly say that homicidal maniacs can be disallowed from carrying guns, that they must be allowed, that anyone wanting to visit the local elementary school while carrying a machine gun must be allowed because the Constitution says people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that people should be allowed to tour the White House while toting machine guns because the Constitution doesn't prohibit that? Amazing.

And while we're at it, what in the Constitution keeps someone from walking into a prison and passing out guns to the inmates? The Constitution doesn't say citizens (except for prisoners) have the right to keep and bear arms, does it?

Re: safety and politics
 

You are obviously completely misunderstanding my position on the world. Its exactly the point you make, which I was trying to convey. There is no Iraqi army coming to my country ever, and thus, I do not need automatic weapons. Nor do I support attacking countries like Iraq for no reason. Do I think its OK to own weapons for hunting or self protection, absolutely. Will I fight I to protect my country if it is attacked?, if I need to, you betcha! Do I own any guns?, I only own a Sheridan air rifle, and a potato cannon. So if you are so scared of my country, you should be hoping for more people like me in it, not less.

Re: safety and politics
 

I'm not worried about external threats. It's the internal ones that trouble me.