Thankfully the Rand Paul has kick out Man for his behaviorFollow

I suppose it would be, however that is essentially what he is arguing. Let me explain to you why:




Except that the rationale written directly into the amendment itself justifies the right to keep and bear arms as one necessary for free society. The amendment does not say that we have that right so we can protect ourselves from criminals, or to hunt for food. Thus, while the alternative reasons may be valid, they are not what the amendment says.

My point all along is that he's arguing to change the amendment itself, not just the interpretation. Changing the interpretation of what types of arms one might need or should be allowed to have in order to form into a militia to preserve liberty is still within the bounds of the amendment as written. That's a legitimate area in which courts can rule.

But he's saying that the entire purpose of the right itself should be changed. That's a complete re-write Joph. And if that's how people actually feel, then they should be pushing to amend the constitution to change the second amendment to say something like "The need to protect one's home from criminals and to hunt for food being necessary for security and survival, the right to keep and bear arms for that purpose shall not be infringed".


You can't go from the words currently in the 2nd amendment to "we should only allow firearms for the purpose of hunting and home protection". You just can't. That rationale itself is completely at odds with that of the original amendment. I'll point out again that I don't agree that the same need to be able to form into militias to fight against tyranny is any less relevant today than it was then, but in addition to that, if you think that's what the law should say then you really do have to actually change the law itself.




Except that none of those other things actually violates the original intent of the right of free speech Joph. The equivalent change to the first amendment would be something like insisting that there is no longer a need to allow people to operate their own printers since no one reads on paper anymore anyway. Same with books. We'll outlaw those. You can get all your information online, and that's just as 'free', isn't it?


See how well that flies Joph.

Edited, Oct 28th 2010 6:25pm by gbaji

Hey, you mean the intent of the Framers is open to interpretation especially when set against changes in the modern world? Because the only thing the amendment says is free speech and free press.

Which was retarded. The reason why "arms" aren't effective against government tyranny is so obviously not because of "gun control", but because of the ridiculous firepower of the US army. Come on, even a 5 year-old would've gotten that one...



Well, it's certainly more effective than having rednecks owning shotguns. Although, to be fair, I think on this particular occasion the French should suck it up and retire at 62. But they use the same arguments as you, the slippery slope. If they lose this fight, they think they will lose the next ones too.

And yes, we've gone from fighting the Monarchy and the feudal system, to trying to get a better deal for the ordinary person in the street. It's called evolution. In a way, it's a sign that things are pretty good in France, as there aren't many other things they feel they should be fighting against. The result of all these fights has been stuff like the 35 hour week, 5 weeks paid Annual Leave, 100% of current salary during maternity leave for 6 months, and 50% for another 3 after that. I think the average worker in France gets a much better deal than the average worker in the US.

But sure, they don't have guns. Although I'd take the 35 hour week, personally.

Agreed, simply because it's so massively expensive not to that it starts to eclipse everything else. On the other hand, how much is this protesting against the pension reform and how much is it people hating Sarkozy's blackened guts? The more violent demonstrations at least seem to tend toward the latter.

Well yeah, and we've known in France we've had a pension problem since the 80s. The longer we put it off, the worst it gets, so we have to start somewhere. And 62 is not really that old. It made sense to retire at 60 when life expectancy was 65 or 67, but it doesn't really anymore. Adjusting to new realities and all that.



Hard to quantify, but it's definitely a bit of both. There is a knee-jerk reaction in France to any kind of reform of this kind. The reaction is definitely worse when it's an arrogant right-wing populist dwarf who pushes them through, but there would've been resistance anyway. It might not have been so violent had they liked the President a bit more, though.

I'm not even reading the thread and I get what everyone's saying. Well, everyone but gbaji.

Yes, but you're amazingly f'ucking smart. It's almost like alcohol has a reverse effect on your brain and a good Bloody Mary actually makes you better at using your thinker.

Right! Helicopters and bombers and tanks and cruise missiles have played no part in Afghanistan and Iraq! Smart thinking!

Hahahahahahaha....

The US in Iraq or Afghanistan isn't a "revolution". A "revolution" was the Kurds trying to revolt in Iraq and being beaten back with superior weaponry including poison gases. A "revolution" was Serbia into Kosovo before NATO intervened. A "revolution" was Georgia rolling into South Ossetia with armor and air power until Russia responded with even more overwhelming force. A "revolution" was the American South being burned to the ground during the Civil War.

I don't know what silly notion you have that it's all pistols and rifles because armor, artillery, air power and missiles won't "help you" but it was great for a long laugh so thanks for that much.

Edited, Oct 29th 2010 4:11pm by Jophiel