No one has absolute rights! In a rational world, we have to deal with the areas where an individual’s rights impact on other individuals and one state’s rights impact on another’s. We can, I think, just get along, if we deal less in theories and deal more in studying how all these rights conflict and combine in real life.

I suspect that a lot of our bitter partisanship comes from insisting on ideologies and theories instead of focusing on what’s happening in the areas where we interact and figuring out how to accomodate as many rights as possible while doing as little damage as possible to other rights.

Insisting on one absolute will guarantee that you will be stepping on the toes of another absolute.

Just so I’m clear, I don’t want to change the Constitution.

You don’t want to change the Constitution, but you want federal restrictions on firearms. Those two are incompatible – that’s the point Michael and I have been making. If you support restrictions on firearm ownership at the Federal level, then you need to change the Constitution.

Furthermore, you keep talking about so-called “assault weapons.” I’ve asked you a couple of times now to define what that is in specific terms. I’ve also pointed out that DoJ statistics show the vast majority of gun violence comes from handguns, not rifles or other “assault” style weapons. I also asked you do define what an “especially lethal weapon” is.

Domajot,

First of all, I’m not a big proponent of the term “states’ rights” because in my opinion, states don’t have rights–people do. What you are refering to is the concept of federalism, which is embodied by the tenth amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I’m not always happy with the results of federalism myself, but the tenth amendment says what it says, frankly, if you have a problem with federalism, then you have a problem with the Constitution.

Secondly, I mentioned federalism (or “states’ rights”) as the proper way to deal with laws concerning licensing of cars/drivers. It’s funny how no one here has challenged the idea that cars/drivers should licensed by the individual states, and yet they defend federal gun control laws. What’s so bizarre about this is that, unlike driving a car, which is not protected as a right under the Constitution, gun rights are specifically protected under the Constitution. So if anything, there is even a stronger Constitutional argument to be made against federal gun laws than against laws regarding licensing of cars/drivers. And yet we have federal laws for the former but not the latter. It makes no sense.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land (or at least it used to be). The second amendment means what it says–not what you want it to be. Sorry to have to side with the gun nuts on this one, but if you don’t agree with what the Constitution says, you and those who agree with you should work towards amending it and not simply ingoring it.

Just so I’m clear, I don’t want to change the Constitution. (The only proposed change that I have supported was the star-crossed Equal Rights Amendment.) I do hope that Michael responds to my/our challenge with a list of ways that he would like to change the Constitution and why.

You are quite right that federal vs. states rights is not a liberal or conservative issue per se.

That said, there are instances where the greater need should override the state need and I believe that severe restrictions on assault weapons is a pungent example.

There also are instances where the state need should override the federal need and I believe that allowing the use of medical marijuana is a pungent example.

Anti-gun advocates don’t want to change the constitution because they know that will likely crash and burn as well. But that doesn’t matter, because reinterpreting the Constitution in order to avoid the difficult process of changing does not serve anyone’s interests. If the Constitution is so mutable that “Congress shall make no law…” can be interpreted as “Congress can make a law in some cases” then what is the point of having a Constitution. What other sections of it shall we similarly interpret to match popular political views?

The second amendment could not be more clear. The Congress shall make no law. The implication, of course, is that States can make any law they wish, and they have done so to varying degrees. I cannot think of a more clear-cut example of a matter that was clearly intended to reside with States.

And this is not a liberal or conservative issue. Both sides elevate their important causes to the federal level so they can be enforced nationwide. I don’t consider the 2nd amendment to be a conservative issue though, because the intent is so clear. Liberals have been more successful in getting their issues “federalized” though.

If you don’t like it, change the Constitution. If we continue down the path we’re on, our great founding document will be lawyered into meaninglessness.

It was said:

> Change the Constitution.

Absolutely correct. Don’t you leftists lie on here and claim the Constitution means just what you want it to mean, and don’t you continue to engage in illegtimate judicial activism to get a judge to say it means what you want it to mean. Amend it the legitimate way if you want it to be changed.

The Constitution has withstood the test of time. That is why there have been so few amendments and most recent amendments have been technical in nature. That also is why recent efforts to change the Constitution — all highly agenda-driven issues like flag burning, same-sex marriage and English as official language — have crashed and burned.

Please explain all of the ways in which you think that this remarkably durable document should be changed and why.

In the case of gun regulation. in these days of fast cars and faster planes, one state’s laws can undermine another’s. So, some coordination would work better than none.

Change the Constitution. I might be all with you on the issue of weapons in general but… change the Constitution. “It’s needed” is not a good reason to interprete the Constitution as broad, as creative as possible to suit your purposes.

Kim: if you consider it to be not clear enough, and / or times changed and their are more weapons that can have a bigger impact… great – change the Constitution.

In general, I think it’s very counterproductive to address problems from the top down:
government programs are always better than contracting out, or
states rights always trump federal law.
You have to come out of the ideological clouds and look at what would work better in each case.
Historically, sometimes one side gets the upper hand, and sometimes the other. And that’s the way it should be.

Nowhere. That’s why this power is left to the individual states. We don’t have federal laws requiring cars to be licensed. We have state laws requiring cars to be licensed.

Why because you went to law school? Give me a break, Mvdg

Times have changed.
And honorable people will have different ideas on how the ‘then’ should apply to ‘now’.

But, when all the arguments are over, we are not talking about making gun ownership illegal. It’s a question of regulating and licensing.
Where does it say in the Constitution that your car needs a license?
Where does it say that alcohol sales should be regulated?

Ease up, gun toting folks.
A little common sense is in order. If you don’t want your neighbor to have a fully armed tank in his backyard, guns trained at your house, I think you will agree that some rules are needed.

We only need to negotiate the terms of regulation.

I don’t mind the government using its power to properly regulate against systemic abuses, as it was intended to do- it is after all in essence a regulatory body. Its when the executive who has been handed that power abuses it right and left and co-opts what is supposed to be a separate body set up by the Constitution, that I mind. You can be in favor of constitutionally mandated checks and balances on governmental power and still want regulation
of gun ownership, MvdG. If there’s to be no infringement, why not let 6 year olds have guns? Or felons? Its their constitutional right, no?

I must say, now that you mentioned it, Bush has perverted DOJ to the point where I don’t feel safe from my own government. That is quite a feat, because whether or not there was a Democrat or a Republican in office, I never feared the actions of my own government before.

Cosmo,

You’re killing me! Have mercy!

The second amendment is NOT a collective right! It’s an individual right! The dependent clause that precedes the independent clause the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed was not intended by the Founding Fathers to limit the right to bear arms, but rather, to justify it.

For everyone else who believes that the second amendment only apples to militias, I have to ask you: Why would the Founding Fathers draft a Bill of Rights, and in the midst of amendments protecting individual rights, insert a single amendment that only protects collective rights?

It makes no sense. We don’t have a collective right to free speech–we have an individual right to free speech. We don’t have a collective right against search and seizure without a warrant–we have an individual right against search and seizure without a warrant.

The Federalist Papers makes it pretty clear that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights–not collective rights. And unless you’re choosing to apply a different standard for the second amendment that you do the rest of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment is an individual right.

Michael,

It’s a common theme in American politics among both conservatives and progressives–Freedom for me but not for thee.

That’s why I tend to vote Libertarian. Libertarians tend to be a little “out there” on certain issues, but at least their willing to take a consistent stand in favor of freedom without regard to whether the freedom might be regarded by some as “too liberal” or “too conservative.”

Yes, that damned Constitution!

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Man, were the founding fathers wrong on that one! They should have worded it a bit differntly, shouldn’t they?

Amend the constitution Kim