Sorry, Roma, meant to address that...no, Canada does not have anything equivalent to the 2nd amendment. There are some Canadian websites you can find that say Canadians *do* have the right to bear arms, and this is guaranteed by our constitution via English laws, but when you look at the links, they start with the Magna Carta, continue with English Common Law from the 1600s, and then cite some nebulous arguments about being able to protect one's self. I guess the rationale being that as we are a Commonwealth country, we should cede to the laws of English history...or something. Anyway, most people look to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the most current document describing our rights as Canadians (it's what people would turn to, for example, if they felt they had been discriminated against based on race, creed, or sexual orientation, as it establishes equal rights for all Canadians, and as such, we don't need specific acts such as ENDA.)

And yeah, wow, I miss Cambridge sometimes! I went to school at Rindge & Latin for a short time (ended up transferring elsewhere), and had many a misspent afternoon and evening in Hahvahd Squayuh.

Thanks Canuck. I didn't think Canada had anything like the 2nd. And therein lies a fundamental difference between the two countries: the U.S. has the right to bear arms "enshrined" in the Constitution; Canada does not. And that right is, as you know, passionately defended by many Americans (and the "shall not be infringed" part has been interpreted very strictly by the courts.)

As I mentioned to an Australian in another thread, Australia, like Canada, did not resort to violent revolution against the British Empire in order to establish itself as a country. The U.S. did and it's my understanding the primary purpose of the 2nd was to ensure that "the people" could resist or overthrow any potential future tyranny ("being necessary to the security of a free State".)

Unlike in Canada and Australia, that right to bear arms is in our cultural and legal DNA.

Now, one can certainly argue -- and many people do -- that the 2nd isn't relevant anymore, that even if the U.S. ended up having a tyrannical government, there's no way "the people" armed with just guns could overthrow it or effectively resist it (presuming that the military, with its vast array of weapons, was on the government's side.) But others, I'm sure, would argue that "the people" need to have that right regardless, and a passionate 2nd Amendment defender could point to Afghanistan and the Russians as an example of how people armed with just guns (and okay, RPGs) can defeat a force with far superior firepower.

Interesting stuff, folks.

@302, 303 - There are certainly problems with illegal gun ownership - particularly handgun ownership - in Canada. The old NRA canard that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is true to a certain extent; if handguns are severely restricted or illegal, then only those who don't particularly care about breaking the law will acquire them.

But they do have to acquire them from somewhere. This paper shows there are three major sources of guns used in crimes in Canada: legal guns misused by their owners; legal guns diverted to illegal markets through theft or illegal sale; and... smuggled guns originating from the US:

While guns originally owned in Canada are a major source for the illegal trade, in large cities, smuggled guns account for more than 50% of the handguns recovered in crime in Canada, 80% of the guns recovered in crime in Mexico and 1/3 of the guns recovered in crime in Japan.

Canada Customs seizes about 1000 - 1500 smuggled guns each year. This number represents the tip of the iceberg as only a small percentage (3%) of trans-border traffic is checked. These guns account for as many as 50% of the handguns recovered in crime. In 2004, the Canada Border Services Agency seized 1,099 firearms at the border including 140 non-restricted firearms, 299 restricted firearms and 660 prohibited firearms.

The United States has 280 million people with approximately 230 million guns (one third of them are handguns) and very few controls. Every year, half a million of these guns are stolen, thus entering into the illegal market.

It is because of statistics like these that American gun laws are, in fact, of valid concern to Canadians. All those arms that are freely kept down there? Some of them end up killing people up here.

(That's what economists call a ""negative externality".)

Geeze! Can't leave this thread for a minute!
Seattleblues, you said the reason you keep coming back here is to discuss issues with people of differing views. Calling people names is counterproductive. And no, the fact that other people are calling you names doesn't make it ok. Twisting people's screen names into an insult is a trick I personally find particularly obnoxious and it makes you look like a ten year old. As a conservative you like to present yourself and your movement as being more adult in your perspicacity and opinions, than your opponents on the Left. Start acting like it. If you need an example of civil disagreement I suggest you pay attention to the ongoing conversation between Roma, Canuck, and svensken in this thread.

I don't usually weigh in on discussions of the second amendment and gun ownership, mainly because I think they're pointless, and that the topic is used cynically by both sides to motivate their base. Guns in the United States are here to stay. Every time I get an hysterical e-mail from the NRA, of which I am a member, positing jack booted thugs coming to take my handguns, I have to laugh. Our country is VAST. There are millions of guns here of all types and sizes, in the hands of law abiding citizens and criminals alike. To rid our country of them, or even enforce wide scale registration, would require an budgetary increase both federally and locally the likes of which would make a Republican congress apoplectic en masse, and an almost complete gutting of the forth amendment. So yeah, that heavily armed horse has left the barn. Fighting over that fact just keeps us polarized as a nation and prevents exploration for the root causes of violence. The left likes to blame the tools used, while the right likes to blame human nature. Both positions are pat, and simplistic, and perfect for sound bites, but lousy as a basis for public policy. But that's just my opinion.

Well, although pat, I think there is validity to both arguments, Lissa, both the availability of guns, and the mindset of the people who use them in the States. But, one more thing to look at, when wondering why Switzerland and Canada have gun ownership without the levels of gun crime that the States has, would be the huge disparity of wealth. I would venture that neither Canada nor Switzerland has the large number of disenfranchised, desperate, uninsured people that the States does. It seems that whether you're looking at parts of the States that have high levels of gun crime, or Africa, or Mexico, there is also a huge disparity in income levels.

And I agree, there would be little point trying to change the 2nd amendment. But it should take at least as much training and licensing to own a gun as it does to drive a car...

@310: But, but, but, Canuck... surely requiring training or licensing would represent an INFRINGEMENT on the sacred Right to keep and bear arms! The Second Amendment says nothing about "responsible gun ownership"!

Sigh. The Right always seems so big on "personal responsibility" - crime rates influenced by social policy? Nonsense! Crime is the personal responsibility of the criminal who commits it! Social safety nets? Nonsense! If you are poor, that's your personal responsibility! Government-funded health care? Nonsense! You have personal responsibility to take care of your own health!

Responsible gun ownership? Hem, hem, well, (foot shuffling, looking away), that's not the same thing at all...

@Canuck and Roma

I don't remember writing that. CONSPIRACY!!! But my grammar improved while I was in a blackout......

@Lissa

To be completely fair, I called him my Sweetypie

Elitist Northeaster Libruls. Always so confused, but Elitist!

@310: I think you make a very good point correlating violence and poverty. I think statistics showing a decrease in overall crime during times of high employment and economic prosperity would back you up. I also agree that training in gun safety would be a valuable thing in this country considering, as I said, how many guns there are. The Eddie Eagle program sponsored by the NRA is a good example, and one that could be modified for an adult curriculum.

@312: I know you did, and you are very gracious to admit it. Seattleblues could benefit from your example. I mean, he doesn't even have inebriation to use as an excuse! :)

Good thing there weren't cars around when they were crafting the US Constitution, eh Backyard? The mind boggles...(when my kids get annoyed that I never applied for US citizenship for them, I tell them, "you'll thank me someday...")

BB

"The Right always seems so big on "personal responsibility" - crime rates influenced by social policy? Nonsense! Crime is the personal responsibility of the criminal who commits it! Social safety nets? Nonsense! If you are poor, that's your personal responsibility! Government-funded health care? Nonsense! You have personal responsibility to take care of your own health!"

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm glad you finally made some sense! Doesn't that feel better, now?

But you ruin your epiphany with-

As for your last paragraph the Loughner incident proves you wrong. The right are the ones saying that he is responsible for his use of his weapon, not Sarah Palin or whatever bogeyman the left wants to blame.

And Canadian smugglers bringing weapons into Canada illegally seems to me to be your problem, not the result of US gun laws.

On your showing, I pay more for prescription drugs because of Canadian socialist medicine. R&D costs money, and Canada won't pay for this in their pre set pricing. So these companies take it out on us. In other words, I subsidize your drug prices. So, Americans have a real interest in ending socialist medicine in Canada, right?

Like it, hate it or don't care, the 2nd Amendment says what it says. If the will is there (for AMERICANS) to change it, we will. Otherwise it is NOT NOT NOT your business. Period. Full stop. Finis.

309: "If you need an example of civil disagreement I suggest you pay attention to the ongoing conversation between Roma, Canuck, and svensken in this thread."

Thanks Lissa. Y'know when I first started posting on a internet forum many years ago, I could be a bit of a name-calling hothead, especially when someone attacked me or my opinions. But then a guy -- a hardcore Libertarian -- joined our forum. He was almost constantly bashed by people but he remained unflappable and never resorted to name-calling or put-downs or other ad hominen attacks. I didn't agree with most of his positions, but his refusal to sling mud back at people impressed the hell out of me and he became my role model.

The left likes to blame the tools used, while the right likes to blame human nature. Both positions are pat, and simplistic, and perfect for sound bites, but lousy as a basis for public policy.

The left and right are both correct. The right is correct in that guns are not animate objects that commit murders on their own -- it's people that are responsible and murderers would probably commit their murders regardless of whether or not they had a gun -- but the left is correct in that people aren't the only issue. Guns (and the amount of ammunition) magnify the damage that people are capable of doing. Loughner would've likely killed less people had he been armed with only a 10 round clip instead of one that held 30 rounds and would've certainly killed less people had he only been armed with a knife.

Fighting over that fact just keeps us polarized as a nation and prevents exploration for the root causes of violence.

The root cause of the three most deadly shootings -- by Loughner, Nidal Hasan and the Virginia Tech murderer -- seems to be an angry, disturbed individual. How do we protect society from people like this without trampling on civil liberties? Or, since something caused them to become angry and disturbed in the first place, how do we prevent people from becoming angry and disturbed? Can we?

Seattleblues, what is your opinion on US intervention in other countries, both acknowledged (Afghanistan and Iraq) and unacknowledged (CIA everywhere else)? Because your answer will quite possibly nullify your statements about Canadians who are concerned about politics in the US.

Like it, hate it or don't care, the 2nd Amendment says what it says.

Seattleblues is correct here. It would be great (great from the point of view of those us who'd like stronger gun control, that is) if the 2nd said...

The people must have the right to keep and bear arms, but reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right (e.g. crazy people should not be allowed to keep and bear arms.)

or...

The people must have the right to keep and bear arms, but only as part of a well-regulated militia.

But it doesn't. It says "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." It's clear ("the right . . . shall not be infringed") yet it's also vague (why is the militia phrase there? is that right contingent on being in a well-regulated militia or not? and, if not contingent, then why include the phrase?)

@309

You're right. Frustration with people like Svensken who know that their pet theory simply won't fly doesn't excuse rudeness.

Svensken,

You might do some research. The United States was founded on a lot of notions. Roman and Greek ideas of governance played a part. Locke and Montesquie and Hobbes influenced the men who wrote the 1789 Constitution. Some modern scholarship suggestst that some ideas may even have come from the Iriquois Confederation. The bulk of our legal system is lifted wholesale from the English common law system.

And it doesn't matter. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any laws, including gun registries, which conflict with it's provisions are simply illegal. What influenced the men who wrote it ais helpful in interpretation or academic pursuits, but not dispositive. Canadian law doesn't matter. British or French or Vietnamese or UN legal precedent is irrelevant. If we didn't owe our souls to them in massive debt and the constant threat of divesting dollars as their currency, Chinese opinions could go whistle. We abide by the sovereign law of this nation, not the opinions of the world.

I note that you never answer the central point I make, that all our rights are co-dependent. Violations without due process of my fathers 2nd Amendment rights give the opening for your first or 5th Amendment rights to be abrogated. If you think the popular will is there to change the 2nd Amendment, please attempt it. Otherwise, please respect it.

Canuck,

Thanks for your clarification of disdain and dislike for this nation. Your tag really says it all, you are not an American except by technicality, but the wholesale rejection of even the notion of citizenship here for your kids is telling. If you're raising them with your values, I'm thanking you right now for refusing them American citizenship. You don't have to wait for them to thank you.

FYI, drivers licensing has been addressed as a Constitutional issue, and resolved.

And Roma has it right. Jefferson advocated for regular revolution, saying that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots periodically. These men were revolutionaries who wanted their fledgling government fully aware that they too were susceptible to revolution. You won't ever hear a high school history teacher saying this, but it is true nonetheless. The sole reason for the right to bear arms (and the primary reason for governments to limit gun ownership) is to make revolution feasible. "Militia" referred to state military bodies with the military force to defy the federal government if necessary, not to a federal force.

And maybe she is further right that the time has come to change the clause. If the need is sufficiently compelling, this will happen. Until then, the 2nd Amendment is the law of this land.

Thank you for moving to Canada. It seems a better fit for you, and it removes one more person who dislikes this nation from the place. Now if only Obama would follow you....

Seattleblues, I'd prefer for my kids to live in a country where they don't have to choose between a life-saving operation for one of their children and feeding the others, or being unable to marry the person they love if they happen to be gay...call me crazy, I guess, that's just the kind of "mum" I am...

Canada does not recognize general self defense as an adequate reason for having one, I think you must prove that your life is actually in danger.

Canuck, it seems to me that if you had to wait to prove that your life was actually in danger in order to obtain a gun for self-defense, it would be a little too late, wouldn't it?

I just did a Google search for "intruder killed by homeowner" and this was one of the first links: Intruder Shot And Killed By Lincoln Co. …. If this woman hadn't had a gun, she'd probably be the one killed. And there are probably countless similar situations like this in the U.S. each year.

Sheriff Chuck Mangion said 57-year-old Donna Jackson called 911 around 12:30 a.m. to report that she was home alone and a man was trying to break in her patio door. Jackson told the 911 dispatcher that the man was screaming and threatening to hurt her.

"They need to hurry. He's going to break this thing open. When he does, I'll have to kill him and I don't want to kill him," Jackson said during the 911 call.

For nearly 10 minutes the man continued banging at the door and yelling profanities, threatening the woman. "I can hear him banging the doors and yelling at her. I was scared for her," said Brenda Hart, a Lincoln County 911 dispatch who was on the phone with Jackson during the incident.

The man picked up a patio table and threw it through the glass door and entered the home. The woman then shot him in the chest, Mangion said.

Under state law, Jackson was in the right to take legal action in self defense.

@318

I never thought military intervention in either country well advised. The first Gulf War was the obvious invasion of one sovereign nation by another. The entire world has a compelling self interest in making it clear that this won't be tolerated.

Afganistan has been shown by the Russians and the British before them to be a tough nut to crack militarily. Why we didn't learn this lesson is a problem. Iraq could have been isolated and contained at massive savings to the US taxpayer in the latest adventure there, and at any rate no credible existential threat to the United States existed to justify war.

I thought I'd been fairly clear and fairly consistent. I don't opine about Italian politics while there, or the internal politics of other nations we visit while at our house. (Unless asked. I've had a number of stimulating train rides honestly discussing world events all accross Europe, and a neigbor and I will drink lemoncello and talk about politics all night on occasion, to our wives disgust.) Those are the legitimate right of the folks who live there to dispose of, and I've got no horse in that race.

There are occasions when 'purely internal' doesn't cut it. Wholesale murder or rape, or violations of basic human rights at least entitle the rest of the world to a voice, if not actual force to stop the behavior. This line is notoriously difficult to draw. Frankly, it also relies on economics and real politics. We defended Kuwait, but left Somalia a mess, and Cambodia still suffers from the fallout of the genocide there. Why? Oil. Plain and simple, we cannot maintain our way of life without a dependable energy supply. This may be unpleasant as a fact, but it is nonetheless true. We pick the places we intervene based on the goals and needs of our and our allies economies and political affiliations. It's messy, and it doesn't fit the clean narrative of the true believers, but it is true.

I just don't think that gay marriage or gun control make the cut. If Canada resents guns smuggled across their border, they need to come up with a solution. If Canada resents marriages sanctioned by their nation not being recognized by ours... well, I can't help you there. We are 2 different nations with much in common, but we also have some pretty stark differences. That these will show in international discussions is hardly surprising.

The sole reason for the right to bear arms (and the primary reason for governments to limit gun ownership) is to make revolution feasible.

That's always been my understanding. The questions are: how will we know when a revolution is necessary? How will we know when our government becomes a tyranny? Is a violent revolution feasible in the 21st century? In the American Revolution, there were loyalists (Tories) but I believe they were only about 10-15% of the population. The majority of people were in favor of revolution. If we were to ever have another revolution, would that majority/minority split hold? Or would we end up with another civil war, but with a left/right split instead of a north/south split, with one political wing thinking a violent revolution is necessary, the other wing thinking they're crazy and independents going both ways?

"Militia" referred to state military bodies with the military force to defy the federal government if necessary, not to a federal force.

That's always been my understanding too but couldn't the intent of the 2nd be that the right to bear arms is continent on being part of a well-regulated state military body?

@320: See, you're still not listening. You know how I know? Because if you actually had taken what I said to heart you wouldn't have felt compelled to add that snotty little zinger at Svenken's expense. Your insults directed at Canuck are equally gratuitous, and one wonders why you expend your energy denigrating her parenting instead of answering her question. To wit: How do you reconcile the involvement of the United States diplomatically and militarily, both covert and otherwise, in the "business" of other sovereign nations with your insistence that all others keep their noses out of ours? I await your response.

@321

That came out unduly snarky. I just meant that you seem to have found a home that fits your tastes well. The United States is mainly a center right nation, many of whose policies seem to cause you irrritation. Congratulations on finding a good fit for your life in your adopted home.

For a while the slow pace of life, amazing food, art and architecture and general values had me considering expatriation in Italy. As it happened, I chose otherwise. (I'll save you and BB time. 'The Italians dodged a bullet there!') I don't hate Italy, obviously. The US is just a better fit for my choice of primary home. I truly believe that we have a lot to work on. Our health care system is a Frankensteins monster of private and public, gaining all the disadvantages and few of the advantages of either. We can be crass and short sighted and materialistic. We have made mistakes whose consequences we still are working out, like slavery or our foolishness in signing any treaties with native populations. But fundamentally, the spirit of self reliance and individuality, the optimism and cheerful good nature of this nation, mean America to me is the best place to live in the world.

"Jefferson advocated for regular revolution, saying that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots periodically."

Wow. Tim McVeigh had the same ignorant interpretation of those words, too. He wore a T-shirt with those words on that same day he blew up the Federal Building. Go look up Shays Rebellion and understand the context before you throw things around like that.

The other silly thing is your reverential tone for dead guys. There's a real puerile arrogance that comes from American Exceptionalism--we have created demi-gods out of 300 year old men and haven't realized that others in humanity have progressed further than they did. We're not at the forefront of political innovation anymore, sorry to break it to you!

I'd prefer for my kids to [not] live in a country where they [are] unable to marry the person they love if they happen to be gay.

We'll get there eventually, Canuck. Slowly* but surely, people are going realize that same-sex marriage poses no threat whatsoever to opposite-sex marriage.

*After all, it took us until 1920 to give women the right to vote (although Canada wasn't much better on that count: "About a year and a quarter later, at the beginning of 1919, the right to vote was extended to all women in the Act to confer the Electoral Franchise upon Women")

@324 So far, IMO Loyalism is now defined as allegiance to the economic elite (just as it really was with the colonial loyalists)--whether knowingly or not. Perhaps this is why we have many across the political spectrum defending the right of the rich to be free of higher taxes.

"or our foolishness in signing any treaties with native populations." Yes, we should have been honest and kept on with that good ol' time genocide.

@323: Augh! You were too fast for me, and answered my question while I was writing it!

dirac, what's your understanding of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment?

So far, IMO Loyalism is now defined as allegiance to the economic elite (just as it really was with the colonial loyalists)--whether knowingly or not. Perhaps this is why we have many across the political spectrum defending the right of the rich to be free of higher taxes.

With the growing concentration of wealth and income among the richest Americans, some people might argue we're on our way to a "tyranny of the economic elite."

Simplistic, SB, so very simplistic. I have to say, there are some clear advantages in adhering to simple worldviews that do not admit any complexity. But the world is not so simple.

For exaple: "The right are the ones saying that he is responsible for his use of his weapon, not Sarah Palin or whatever bogeyman the left wants to blame." I'm not seeing very many people saying that Sarah Palin is to blame, full stop. What I am seeing is an acknowledgement that there is more to the story than a simple "He did it." My view is that Loughner is mentally ill, that his illness went untreated if not unnoticed, and that his violence was the result. I think he should be locked away somewhere that he cannot pose a danger to others. I also think that the broader social environment influenced the way that his illness manifested itself, and the targets that his paranoid mind chose to focus on. I recognize that his particular obsessions seem to have a lot in common with the talking points of the anti-government libertarian fringe. I also think that the free availability of a weapon and ammunition allowed him to do far more damage than he otherwise would have.

"And Canadian smugglers bringing weapons into Canada illegally seems to me to be your problem, not the result of US gun laws." Spoken like a true conservative - negative externalities? What are they? Someone else's problem. It would be easier to accept if I hadn't spent ten years listening to how Canada needed to secure its borders because terrorists were trying to enter the US from here. How is that OUR problem if American guns entering the US are not YOUR problem?

"On your showing, I pay more for prescription drugs because of Canadian socialist medicine. R&D costs money, and Canada won't pay for this in their pre set pricing." Once again, simplistic. The reality is a lot more nuanced:

The Canadian system takes advantage of centralized buying by the provincial governments that have more market heft and buy in bulk, lowering prices. By contrast, the U.S. has explicit laws that prohibit Medicare or Medicaid from negotiating drug prices. In addition, price negotiations by Canadian health insurers are based on evaluations of the clinical effectiveness of prescription drugs, allowing the relative prices of therapeutically-similar drugs to be considered in context. The Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board also has the authority to set a fair and reasonable price on patented products, either comparing it to similar drugs already on the market, or by taking the average price in seven developed nations. Prices are also lowered through more limited patent protection in Canada. In the U.S., a drug patent may be extended five years to make up for time lost in development. Some generic drugs are thus available on Canadian shelves sooner.
The pharmaceutical industry is important in both countries, though both are net importers of drugs. Both countries spend about the same amount of their GDP on pharmaceutical research, about 0.1% annually.

I admit, it isn't as pithy as "Canadian socialized medicine costs me money!" but there it is. Life is complex.

@332: Well, I don't understand it, honestly. There's clearly ambiguity. However, if the author of that text gave any precedent to clauses and phrases, then that's telling. What's the first phrase? "A well-regulated Militia..." Keep in mind that only two words are capitalized: State and Militia. People (not person or persons, mind you), comprised of a group of individuals, is not capitalized. It's hard to tell what that really means, but I have a feeling the Militia thing is not a throw-away issue in the author's eyes. Also, nowhere is there an explicit individual right in my view because of this use of people; it's also an inherent acknowledgement of the necessity of society--which I think they took for granted back in those days.

Thanks dirac. Sorry I wasn't more clear with my question, though. What I meant was: what's your understanding of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment regardless of the militia clause. In other words, why do you think they wanted people, either on their own or as part of a militia, to have the right to bear arms?

"The security of a free State" usually has the connotation that this is always for the necessity of rebellion but I'd argue that this is also very open-ended: it could be national security, it could be to call Militia's to put down rebellions. Also, if you want to go there (the rebellion route), be prepared to argue for the individual ownership of low-yield nuclear devices and other high-tech warfare so that the individual can be on the same footing as the State.

Thanks again dirac. I actually erred above when I said "that's always been my understanding" in response to Seattleblues writing "The sole reason for the right to bear arms (and the primary reason for governments to limit gun ownership) is to make revolution feasible."

It's always been my understanding that the the primary reason, or one of the main reasons, for the 2nd is to make revolution feasible, not the sole reason. I believe, like you, that there were other reasons as well...defending against an invading power would likely have been one. However, since the colonists had used violent revolution to throw off the yoke of tyranny (as they saw it anyway), it seems very likely to me that wanted to establish the right of the populace to bear arms in case that ever became necessary again. And, as I've mentioned before, I think this is why the U.S. has the 2nd and countries like Canada and Australia don't.

Viewing "shall not be infringed" very strictly, individuals should be allowed to bear any type of arms: machine guns, tanks, grenades, mortars, nuclear devices, what-have-you. After all, the 2nd doesn't define what "arms" are, or say what arms are not allowed. But courts, I'm guessing, have ruled that "arms" is not unlimited, in the same way that free speech is not unlimited. It's your basic "reasonableness" test.

@337 Thanks. The other controversial reason for a second amendment is the need to keep the slave population in control (another type of rebellion quashing). The elite in early America were not without their hypocrisy, but I am not so sure about that theory.

Link.(by no means an endorsement of the particular commentary). I'd like to see the paper by Bogus but can't pull it up right now.

You know, Seattleblues, as far as I'm concerned, discussions about politics in general can be interesting, informative, whatever. The fact that you can dismiss my US citizenship as a "technicality", when I was born in the States, and lived there for 22 years, well, whatever, I really don't care. What I DO care about, what supercedes all other discussions, is your insistence in referring to gay people as "deviant." I don't care how conciliatory you are in other regards, in this area, you are appalling, and it defines you. It offends me completely, when I think about the great people I know in my community, and how with one broad stroke you dismiss them so comprehensively. This is not a difference of opinion about politics. I may disagree with other commenters about gun policy, or various other political matters, but none of them dismiss, wholesale, an entire group of people. We are united, at least, in our feeling that everyone is equally deserving of love and friendship. You are not. If your outlook is what defines a Christian, you are doing a poor job of emulating your boss.

You're welcome dirac, and thanks for that link.

Bogus said it was clear that the Second Amendment was drafted to protect Southern militias, not broadly allow individuals to arm themselves.

Certainly an interesting theory and I'm sure it is very clear to Bogus (what a great name: the Bogus theory) but I'm also sure many other people -- historians, constitutional scholars and the like -- would differ (although historian Garry Wills apparently agrees.)

Roma: FYI, before I move on: here's the two links I read on this:

http://www.potowmack.org/garwills.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

Wills took the approach that Madison was using the 2nd and 3rd amendment as political maneuvering before Bogus wrote his paper. I find it fascinating and compelling, but am still cautious. However, Wills' paper has a very good explanation of the 2nd Amendment--a definite plausible alternative to the consensus insurrectionist theories.

LAST

@ Seattleblues

So I was right and you were wrong. Good to know.

Check out the Constitution of the Roman Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio…

dirac, thanks for those links. Haven't had time to read them yet but will get around to it eventually. I appreciate you bringing that theory into the discussion. Even if I don't agree with it, (or don't end up agreeing with it after more reading), I still like learning something new and interesting and don't mind being challenged on something I always thought to be true.

*

Canuck, I knew someone on a forum years ago who called gays & lesbians "deviant", using the same reasoning that Seattleblues did @ 214. But that reasoning is, of course, just an excuse to get in a mean-spirited dig at gays & lesbians. Left-handed people, blue-eyed people, blondes, dwarfs, and people with autism deviate from the norm too but no one refers to them as deviants.

Interestingly, Roma, there are half as many redheads as gay people worldwide, I wonder how that figures into SB's deviancy premise?

@Canuck

As a Deviant, I can tell you that I'm highly suspecting that the Deviant numbers have been underestimated.

One can only hope, svensken. Makes for a much more enjoyable, not to mention better dressed, world.

@340

I have never suggested that any human being should be denied love and friendship. Nor would I.

I have never expressed hatred for anyone, gay or straight on this blog. Nor would I.

Homosexuality is by definition deviant sexuality. Because something is hard to acknowledge makes it no less true. Because it challenges someone elses pre-conceptions or need for self excuse makes it no less true. I don't use it as a mean spirited dig at anyone, but as a simple statement of what is incontrovertibly true.

Svensken,

I've heard nearly every theory as to what influenced the founding of this nation, as I was a poli sci major in college. The founders were greedy plutocrats or they were demi-gods. They were racist pigs or they were englightened men doing the best they could with a compromise. They were calculating speculators or they were brave men and women who put all their property and their very lives on the line for a principle. Professors must publish or die, seemingly, and after 200 years and more of doing so, to avoid repetition, the theories get more and more abstruse.

The wiki article you link to seems to say that while no written constitution existed in ancient Rome, the notions of governance were remarkably similar to ours. Okay. With no actual Roman document to refer to, that claim is a bit hard to substantiate without some fairly heavy research. But for purposes of discussion I'll accept that whoever wrote the article did that research.

This doesn't change the salient fact. Once established our Constution became the supreme law of the land. Other countries documents or laws, the influences under which the writers of the Constution worked and so on are less important than the actual words of the actual document. We can and should learn from the experiences other nations undergo, the experiments in government they undertake. We can and should know our own history for insight into why we are who we are. But in the end for purposes of law, the defining thing is the Constitution as it was written and amended.

They were not infallible. It's why there's a process for changing the contract. They knew very well that the document must change or become irrelevant. It's changing the document outside of that process that is the threat, not change itself.

All rancour aside, SeattleBlues, if you are interested in Second Amendment issues you really should read the Wills paper that dirac linked to in post 342 above. It's a very interesting analysis of the amendment, its language, and its origins that posits a different theory as to its intent. (You probably will not be persuaded by it, but it is a good read nonetheless.)

@Seattleblues

You obviously haven't studied that deeply because I remember learning about this in Elementary school.

"I don't get to limit the rights of deviant idiots like Savage to speak because I find these kinds of things offensive."

You used deviant in an insulting manner like someone from the south would use nigger. Don't defend your bigotry, change it.

And while your at it. Could you explain to me why Micheal Obama hates America? I keep hearing this right wing rhetoric but there's never an answer.

" Barak Obama offends me as president for a lot of reasons. His wife hates this country."

" With no actual Roman document to refer to, that claim is a bit hard to substantiate without some fairly heavy research. But for purposes of discussion I'll accept that whoever wrote the article did that research."

I, too, knew this from school even though I did no extensive studies on the matter. Many have already done the research for you. For a current exposition on the parallels and influences of the Roman Republic on early American government, I suggest you read at least part of the book, Nemesis by Chalmers Johnson.

Homosexuality is by definition deviant sexuality. Because something is hard to acknowledge makes it no less true. Because it challenges someone elses pre-conceptions or need for self excuse makes it no less true. I don't use it as a mean spirited dig at anyone, but as a simple statement of what is incontrovertibly true.

Seattleblues, what on earth do you mean "hard to acknowledge" or "self-excuse"? There isn't a gay or lesbian alive who isn't fully aware that their sexuality differs from the norm or claims that it's not true that they don't differ from the norm.

Look, either own up to the fact that you like getting in a dig at gays & lesbians or don't refer to them as deviants. Calling them deviants while pretending you're doing it just because it's definitionally correct is really immature.

@354

Thanks for the link and the reading recommendation. Well written books on any subject are hard to come by, so I appreciate any advice on what others have found. The Wills link I found very interesting. I'll look up the book you reference.

But I'd still like to see someone explain why the sources of inspiration for the Constitution are more important than the actual Constitution. I personally think original intent a helpful but far from conclusive metric, since academics can provide attorneys with any kind of theory of what the honorable gentlemen meant by 'well regulated militia' or any of a thousand phrases from our founding document. In the end, isn't the Constitution the standard by which we measure all law in this nation, whatever sources informed it?

@352 and 355

I can only say what my state of mind in writing something is, not what the state of mind those reading it may be. But yes, deviant has pejorative connotations as well as strict definitions If deviant is so difficult to hear, I don't need to use the word.

If a Canadian may have an opinion on the topic, I'd say the question of intent is important precisely because "academics can provide attorneys with any kind of theory of what the honorable gentlemen meant by 'well regulated militia' or any of a thousand phrases." Statements - especially "simple" statements - can be interpreted in different ways. When the law of the land depends on the interpretation, who is to determine which interpretation is correct?

Put another way: one group of academics has already provided attorneys with a theory of what was meant by "keep and bear arms" and "well-regulated militia." Other academics and attorneys may have another theory. Why is the question declared settled now?

Thank you Seattleblues. I'm curious...do you have any gay/lesbian friends, or gay/lesbian people you know pretty well? I have a gay friend I've known for over 30 years and I've heard plenty of stories from him about all the put-downs he's had to hear over the years. You and I, as straight guys, didn't (and don't) have to deal with that kind of shit. Also, while you seem supportive of the right of same-sex civil unions (if not same-sex marriage), I get the sense that the very idea of two people of the same sex loving each other and being affectionate with each other bothers you and, if I'm correct with that conclusion, I'm curious why?

But I'd still like to see someone explain why the sources of inspiration for the Constitution are more important than the actual Constitution.

I don't think it's that the sources, or the intent, is more important. I think it's that those who have to try to interpret the Constitution rely (or may rely) on intent as a guide. The 2nd, for example, really isn't clear. The use of the militia phrase makes it unclear (although, I suppose, you may not agree.)

Statements - especially "simple" statements - can be interpreted in different ways.

Exactly. One one hand, compared to how verbose our modern-day laws are, it's refreshing to see a law that is so simple -- and therefore seemingly clear -- like the 2nd. On the other, one of the reasons modern-days laws are so verbose is because simple statements really aren't (always) so clear. They can be subject to many different interpretations so lawmakers try to cover every single possible base and generate hundreds of words in doing so. If the 2nd was being written today it would be a far different creature.

@357-359

Original intent as a means of judicial interpretation has been vilified and loudly praised, depending on the source. If you google the term, you'll find commentary on it crossing this spectrum.

In general, those who embrace it do so on the following grounds. All language is vague (my favorite line from a Stoppard play is 'you understand we are tied down to a language which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style') so the only way to get at the heart of legislation or Constitutional provisions is to put yourself in the mind of the writer of these legal instruments. An abundance of written material exists on which to base conclusions about what these writers were thinking. In the case of the Constitution minutes of deliberation on the document from the Constitutional convention, letters written to friends and family from delegates and authors, and essay material like the Federalist Papers all combine to give us a fair notion of what was intended. In the case of current legislation deliberations on the part of comittees or the legislative body, and sometimes living witnesses from the sponsors of the legislation serve the same purpose. Having the means to interpret intent at hand, no viable excuse exists for not doing so.

On the 'con' side are a few arguments. Among them, language is indeed subject to interpretation, but how much more are the minds of people dead for two and a half centuries? We rely on the existing writings of these people, subject to mis-interpretation as surely as the language of law or of the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a contract, and in general, contract law doesn't weigh intent of signatories to a contract. It relies on agreement between the parties as to what terms mean. It relies on judicial interpretation of contractual terms in case the parties dispute such terms. Most compellingly, it relies on the good faith of those signing the contract or held to its' terms. Without it, the contract is a paper tiger, for the precise reason of the ambiguity of language. So, on the 'con' side the very ambiguity of language seen as a problem becomes a tool. It is a tool for interpretation as felt social or political change dictates. It allows for a living document which 'alters as it alteration finds.' For the opponents of original intent, the use of it makes of that living document a dead artifact.

Personally, I tend to draw a middle line. Intent matters. The Constitution is not a simple contract, but the means by which we govern ourselves, all heterogenous 300 million or more of us. The provisions should be adhered to as they were intended by the writers, unless a compelling case can be made for change. At all times the notions of liberty and self determination which lie at the core of the principles which formed our Constitution should be held sancrosanct. At all times government should be held to be the solution of last resort, when private solutions to the problem addressed have been shown to be ineffective but the problem has been shown to require being addressed. At the same time, some latitude in interpretation means that we don't need to amend it to allow driver licensing, or changes in IRS policy, or other mundane matters. We can save that process for fundamental alterattions in whast we understand government to be for. For me, for example, circumscribing the 2nd Amendment is just such a fundamental alteration. The Supreme Court found just this principle in Heller, stating that the prefatory clause 'A well regulated militia' did not limit the operant clause 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon' except as the courts have found so far to be the case. (Unusual or dangerous weapons like automatic rifles or hand fired rockets, mentally ill or felonious persons etc.)

Research original intent for yourselves though, by all means. I'm not an attorney or an erudite legal scholar, so I could have mis-stated the pro and con arguments. In any case, it's a question that the finest legal minds this country has produced are divided on, so no matter what else it is, it makes fascinating reading.

Cheap Herve Leger Skirts Sale
Herve Leger Skirts
Shop For Herve Leger Skirts
Buy 2010 Herve Leger Dress
Discount Herve Leger Outlet Store
Herve Leger A-Line Bandage Skirt
Herve leger Banded Skirt Mini Dress