The right to bear arms = the right to practice religion

[Chico Man]

Both protected by the document that defines this nation.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people, right?

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people, right?

These people want their cake and they want to eat it too.

[EstimatedProphet]

1. The Bill of Rights is not a Chinese restaurant menu.

You can't have 1 from column A and 2 from column B. You have all of it, or you commit treason.

[Deep13]

4. Treason is also defined by the Constitution. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

6. Yes.

[TexasObserver]

2. No, it doesn't.

Each right is defined by the cases interpreting the right, so each means what the body of US federal controlling cases says they mean.

[Chico Man]

5. Amendment 1 and Amendment 2

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*****

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*****

***** (unlesss a radical judiciary is established that builds a body of cases that can be misconstrued and interpreted to mean something different)

[TexasObserver]

7. I'm familiar with the history of both amendments. You should be, too.

You should take the time to learn what they mean.

They mean what the courts say they mean, not what you wish they mean.

[SlipperySlope]

9. The courts interpreting the constitution is a flaw...

If the bill of rights only means what the courts say they mean, then we are never really secure in our rights since the court can always change their mind.

We need a different system that takes "interpretation" out of it; the rights secured by the bill of rights should be absolutes.

Could never happen though...

[TexasObserver]

20. Your vision of how the constitution should be interpreted is flawed.

Your belief that you know what the amendments mean without the case law which interprets them is your error. They mean what the courts say they mean, not what you think they should mean.

If you want to change that, you can start your movement to amend the constitution. I think that's a Tea Party issue, so you might want to consult with them. You'll find many, many confederates among those who populate and watch Fox News. That's their point of view, too. Who needs due process, any way? Who needs courts telling you what is or is not your right? You have the right to make your own interpretation! You betcha! Who needs all them fancy words and thoughts?

Judicial review is what makes the third branch of government the third branch of government. Those who find it offensive usually have some simple solution that is simple, but not a solution.

[SlipperySlope]

54. What flaw?

> Your belief that you know what the amendments mean without the case law which interprets them is your error.

An error with regards to how things actually work, or an error with regards to how things should work? I understand that courts interpret the bill of rights. I'm saying that we should have a system where courts do not have this power.

The ideal protection for a right would be one where it was impossible for that right to be violated. Even if *every* court ruled against that right, it should still be impossible to violate that right.

> Judicial review is what makes the third branch of government the third branch of government.

Judicial review is not a power that was granted to the judiciary, it is a power that they seized (Marbury v. Madison).

> Those who find it offensive usually have some simple solution that is simple, but not a solution.

Ah, but I do not have a solution to propose. Laws can only be enforced by humans, and humans are flawed, humans seek power, and humans act in ways that are expedient. I have no solution until machines can enforce our constitution for us.

[TexasObserver]

57. The one where you imagine someone other than the judiciary should interpret the constitution.

Instead of talking about something you clearly know almost nothing about, why don't you take a few years and study the topic from people who do know and understand the judiciary, the constitution, and judicial review? You'll be better for it and you won't embarrass yourself with posts which suggest the Judicial branch and its role interpreting the constitution can be improved on by you.

Go pass an amendment if you don't like judicial review. It will still be the law of this land long after you're gone.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chico Man]

11. Legal rights vs natural rights

Of course, the bill of rights does not define natural rights. Plainly, we are discussing the role of outside influence in the transformation of people into psycho killers. It is guns? Is it religion? Is it video games? I think the Supreme court has plainly ruled that the answer to this question is no because it has been shown that legislative limiting of these legal rights has no impact on whether people decide to break the law.

Sure, take the neccecary steps to make sure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands. Background checks, etc. If Osama Bin Laden were funding the mosque, maybe we should question the wisdom. But no, this effort is being run by xenophobic bigots.

[ThomWV]

18. It is interesting that you correctly assign interpretation to the Courts, not the founding fathers

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone can make an original intent argument with a straight face, as if they knew the minds of the authors of the Constitution. It is the Court that tells us what the Constitution means, it is the only authority.

[wtmusic]

29. SCOTUS makes original intent arguments all the time

and occasionally they change their collective mind. No one in their right mind would dispute SCOTUS' authority, but everyone certainly has the right to their opinion.

[TexasObserver]

58. Many who argue against judicial review have no knowledge of history.

They haven't studied the constitutional convention of 1787, or the role that a small group of progressives played in forcing the founding father's to ADD the Bill of Rights. They haven't studied the Federalist papers. They haven't studied the case creating judicial review, or have any understanding of why it is imperative if the judicial branch is to have any power or major role at all.

If one wishes to know what an amendment means today, one has to read Supreme Court cases which have interpreted the amendment or the right. This chronic dislike of the judiciary deciding is a result of ignorance and prejudice against the rulings the courts have made. In other words, they're people who don't like the result or understand the process.

[derby378]

31. No, they don't...

If the Supreme Court decrees that the Second Amendment says I'm a jelly doughnut, guess what? I'm not. They can stamp their feet and gripe all they want, but I'm not going to turn into one just to soothe their egos.

[wtmusic]

32. Fine, but you'll end up in prison for a long time, Mr. Doughnut. nt

[derby378]

33. "And if the Party says not four, but five - then how many?"

There are logical limits to the amount of power any governing body can assert to. I'm just pointing some of them out.

[wtmusic]

37. There aren't any limits, in a practical sense.

Though you may consider a verdict to be illogical, unfair, maddening, ridiculous, authoritarian, etc. you may still get put away.

Happens all the time.

[TexasObserver]

59. The law is what the judges say it, and your not liking that is immaterial.

[derby378]

63. The law cannot make me a jelly doughnut

You and I both are keenly aware of this immutable fact. It's not a matter of like or dislike; it is a matter of what is and what is not.

[TexasObserver]

64. Your comment is completely unconnected to this topic.

Your inability to form a logical argument is noted.

Ditch the whole jelly donut theme. It's not on point. No one but you has mentioned jelly donuts, or the courts ruling on jelly donuts, or the courts ever declaring anyone a jelly donut.


Your attempt to recast the argument has failed miserably. There are arguments which can be made against judicial review, but yours is not among them.

[wtmusic]

68. Of course it can.

If the law calls you a jelly doughnut, then passes laws with respect to J.D.s, and you don't obey those laws, you will go to jail.

You're idea of what a J.D. is, is irrelevant. Truly.

The same would apply to your idea of the 2nd Amendment, or any other aspect of law. You can hold your breath and stamp your foot - you will still go to jail.

I'm not sure why you feel the law revolves around your universe, but you're just wrong.

[derby378]

71. The Indiana General Assembly...

...once ruled that pi, instead of having a value of 3.14159..., instead had a de jure value of 4. This was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed in American history, but it never changed the value of pi - only the court's interpretation of pi, which was hopelessly irrelevant and, ultimately, indefensible.

The General Assembly could pout and stamp its feet as much as it wanted, but pi never was and never would be 4. Not in our four-dimensional spacetime framework, at least.

There are certain things that are beyond the power of human government to control. The fight over creationism is a perfect example of this - you cannot simply declare the Earth to be 6,000 years old when the Earth is over 500 times that old. Science is not democratic, and it does not bend to judicial review.

I'm merely stating that the same basic premise also applies to our own concept of rights, which can be subject to debate - but only up to a point.

[SlimJimmy]

34. What?

They say what they mean, period. The court cannot change that meaning, the court cannot add to that meaning, and the court cannot take away from it. The ONLY way to change the Constitution is through the amendment process. Even though you would have us believe otherwise.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All the "case law" in the world cannot change the express meaning of the amendment. It is clear as a bell. Don't like it? Then petition Congress or the several states to change it.

[Chico Man]

41. SlimJimmy...

The bill of rights is a legal precedent, not set forth as a dictation of inalienable rights, and as such, is and always will be interpreted by the judicial branch.

[SlimJimmy]

42. I disagree

The amendments (Bill of rights) are not a precedent. They are not subject to change or interpretation by any court. Laws that they are based on might be. Those laws can be found constitutional or unconstitutional. The rights themselves cannot be changed without further amendment.

[Chico Man]

43. But

The right always need to be interpreted. Otherwise, we would have guns on airplanes, AK47 toting toddlers, religions promoting ethnic cleansing, etc etc.

[SlimJimmy]

45. The "Right" itself is not being interpreted.

The law referencing the right is being interpreted as being either constitutional or unconstitutional. The right itself cannot be changed without amendment. I believe we are saying nearly the same thing in a different way.

[Chico Man]

47. gotcha

good point.

[TexasObserver]

60. The law is what the judges say it is.

The federal judiciary interprets the constitution, including the first amendment. It means what they say it does. That's why there are limits on free speech under the first amendment.

Instead of arguing with those who understand it, why don't you stop opining and start reading? You could actually learn and come to understand these concepts if you put in the time and effort.

[county worker]

52. What does this mean?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Leave out the rest and tell me what those words mean.

You can tell me what the next few words mean I'm sure but what do the first few words mean.

[TexasObserver]

61. It means what the Supreme Court says it means.

If you want to know what that is, look it up. They issue public opinions and dissents.

[JoePhilly]

3. Notice the GOP's xenophobic pattern ....

They hate the gays ... their solution ... change the Constitution.

They hate the Mexicans ... their solution ... change the Constitution.

They hate the Muslims ... their solution ... change the Constitution.

And yet, they claim to be the defenders of the Constitution.

They have a serious irony deficiency.

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Nah, they're just evil.

[Rage for Order]

10. And sometimes, even if people have right to carry a gun, maybe they shouldn't

I remember more than a few people here at DU who were up in arms over the fact that teabaggers were going to bring guns to political rallies, including events where Obama would be speaking. Their arguments were along the lines of "Sure, they may have the right to carry their guns but they should exercise better judgment and not bring them to these events." Of course, others said flat out that the government should not allow them to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, period. Funny how things change.

[Chico Man]

12. No law against stupidity

Might as well allow guns on airplanes too? Try testing out that right. But seriously, a mosque in New York City? Oh, it really breaks my heart, it is so dangerous!

[ThomWV]

15. To the contrary, there are lots and lots of laws against stupid

just lock your kid in a car on a hot day and find out for yourself how many laws against stupid we've got.

[Chico Man]

21. Or your dog

But that isn't just stupid, is it cruel and dangerous.

IT is probably illegal to carry a gun to a political rally, and if it is not, it would be really stupid to test the right.

[Rage for Order]

17. It's against the law to carry a gun on an airplane

So I'm not sure what your analogy has to do with anything?

[wtmusic]

27. That's unconstitutional.

The 2nd Amendment says we can carry guns wherever we want, anytime we want.

Oops! My bad...apparently those who make our laws decided that in the interest of public safety, they shouldn't be allowed on airplanes.

Might there be other circumstances where it would be a good idea to prohibit guns? Nah, there's a special exemption in the Constitution for airplanes...it's right here, somewhere.

[X_Digger]

50. My gun flies with me frequently.

Sometimes in the cargo hold (commercial), sometimes on my hip (private plane.)

The 2nd Amendment says we can carry guns wherever we want, anytime we want.

That's a very lovely straw man, did you stuff it yourself?

[wtmusic]

51. I'm impressed.

Now...because apparently you consider the right to bear arms without restriction a "straw man", you favor some restrictions.

You're pro-gun control. So am I! :thumbsup:

[X_Digger]

53. Can't help stuffing it more, can you?

Who here has promoted the 'no restriction' position?

eta: unless you're also promoting a false dilemna in which the only choices are 'more gun control' and 'no restrictions'.

Make up your mind as to which logical fallacy you're endorsing.

[wtmusic]

55. Wrong.

The 'more' in 'more gun control' is yours.

Either you favor restrictions on the ownership of guns, or you don't. There's no "false dilemna", whatever the hell that is. There's not even a false dichotomy.

You favor some restrictions, so you're pro-gun control. I am too! :D

(Hint: instead of packing the pistol on your next trip, take a dictionary and brush up on your vocabulary...it would do far more for your argument.)

[X_Digger]

56. I don't need a dictionary..

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So I guess you're sticking with the straw man, then. Good to know.

You stated:

That's unconstitutional.

The 2nd Amendment says we can carry guns wherever we want, anytime we want.

Is that your position, or are you ascribing that position to someone else? If so, who?

You favor some restrictions, so you're pro-gun control. I am too!

Tilting at imaginary windmills, again?

The third position as opposed to your false binary choice is less control. I favor relaxing conditions on gun ownership and carry that disproportionately affect those most likely to put them to good use, such as onerous and expensive licensing and testing schemes that are out of the range of those less fortunate.

To purchase and legally register a handgun in DC costs as much or more than the handgun itself- http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-washington-dc/how-to-buy-and-register-a-handgun-the-district-of-columbia-a-survival-guide or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html .

Imagine if you're a member of the working poor. You live in a neighborhood rife with crime, but you have a barely steady job at or just above minimum wage.

Can you afford to take off the eight hours during business hours that it requires, standing in line, filling out paperwork, carrying paperwork back and forth between the FFL, district police department, etc? Probably not.

And unfortunately, that's just the way many of the original proponents of gun control want it.

eta: Have a read- even gallup polls on more than your two-dimentional scarecrow position:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-control-support-fading.aspx


eta2: just for S&G, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

[elias7]

23. Do you know how many mosques already exist in NYC and its surrounds?

[Chico Man]

25. Probably quite a few

There are probably more Catholic churches, though.

[elias7]

62. Agreed, as there are more Christians than Muslims in NYC

But I don't understand your statement, "But seriously, a mosque in New York City? Oh, it really breaks my heart, it is so dangerous!"

Do you mean a mosque so close to "ground zero" is just inviting violence? If that is what you mean, I agree with you, but perhaps it is the best move. Hate vs muslims is on the rise....would you have them just "go to the back of the bus" just to get along?

[Chico Man]

73. Tongue in cheek

It was said sarcastically. Again, abortion clinics face the same threat every day. The choice is whether to give in, cower, or hold ground.

I hope the mosque is built. Some day this will be looked back upon. Reminds me of the "we shouldn't build another world trade center because it will invite violence" argument. We are just asking for another plane crash, right?

[EstimatedProphet]

13. The difference

The Cordoba Center is actually considering moving because of the response. Those people that went armed to rallies enjoyed the fact that they were pissing off the other side, and gloated over it.

[Rage for Order]

16. If their goal is as they stated...

To foster inter-faith peace, tolerance, and understanding, then moving the project is a reasonable course of action. You don't promote peace, tolerance, and understanding by having over 70% of people disagreeing with you.

[EstimatedProphet]

22. That is true, but

you also don't engender respect by backing down from bullies. The craziness that has come out over this issue is being driven by bullies like Pam Geller.

[Chico Man]

24. Same could be said for the abortion clinic

Lets move them all to a reservation. Good idea.

[wtmusic]

30. True, MLK should have marched in NYC instead of Selma. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

65. Line in the sand...Get up...Stand Up.. Don't Give Your Right...

[elias7]

19. I think you've misstated the case

It was not "including events where Obama was speaking". I think the sentiment was limited to the event that he was speaking. The argument was not as you state, that "Sure, they may have the right to carry their guns but they should exercise better judgment and not bring them to these events."

My recollection is that most were pleased that the Secret Service was on top of the situation, and that they were able to protect the president and the man's 2nd amendment rights at the same time.

[ThomWV]

14. Anytime in history that religion got mixed up with the state and weapons people died in droves.

[Chico Man]

28. You missed one ingredient:

Alcohol. (Strangely enough, though, alcohol is missing from the psycho muslim case).

[TheKentuckian]

26. I'm an adamant supporter of all our rights and fighting for more

[wtmusic]

36. In many situations rights can be perceived as conflicting with each other.

That's when it gets interesting.

[TheKentuckian]

44. Examples? All I can figure is my rights ending at yours. Usually that results in a natural crime

[wtmusic]

46. The rights to bear arms and freedom of speech vs. promote the general welfare

have both been hotly contested issues.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and carrying guns onto planes are two examples where general welfare wins out over A1 and A2, respectively.

[TheKentuckian]

48. Fire in a theater is a clear case of infringement and guns on the plane

is similar though not a direct cause of harm, it could be argued that the risk of losing cabin pressure puts it there.

That is a solid one and one of the only gun control measures I might be okay with. Please check any firearms is an acceptable compromise for safety, I reckon.

[wtmusic]

49. There are probably other control measures you're ok with

such as kids bringing firearms to school, extremely powerful "arms" being readily available, etc.

IMO there is more middle ground than many on both sides of the debate tend to acknowledge.

[TheKentuckian]

66. Not so much. I believe in early gun education and am ok with personal ownership of conventional

weapons.

I make Charleton Heston look like a gun grabber.

[Daninmo]

35. By that logic

If the law says you can't have certain guns, could it also mean you can't have certain religions? Courts have ruled there can be restrictions on speech, and firearms already.

[Chico Man]

39. Apparently so

Since freedom of religion is not a natural right.

any religion that promotes violence or breaking the law should be outlawed, right? Is that what Islam is all about?

This is a really touchy subject, but I like how it highlights the hypocrisy of the gun-rights movement, most of whom probably are against the Mosque (I admit this is pure conjecture).

[jgraz]

38. Wrong.

Just because two things appear in the same document, that doesn't make them equivalent. The wording and intent of the First and Second Amendments couldn't be more different.

[Chico Man]

40. I think this thread has been useful....

Not that I purely believe my first statement, I want to hear what others have to say on this issue, given this basic analogy.

All rights defined in the bill of Rights are defined by the courts - they are not unalienable.

Both sides of the debate like to cling on some notion of an unalienable right to bear arms, while others think they have an unalienable right to practice religion (or say whatever they want). I've learned this is simply not the case - all rights granted are, in the end, defined and granted by the court, given the framework of the constitution.

I doubt, however, that any court would ever deny the right of any church to build a place of worship simply because it is inflammatory. Putting guns in the hands of criminals or children is simply dangerous. I don't see any danger in allowing Muslims to build a mosque near the WTC site. Maybe it will create tensions, but it brings the issue to the forefront, creates dialog, and perhaps in the long run will promote more understanding.

The question comes down to whether Islam actively promotes violence or law-breaking behavior and forces people to fly airplanes into buildings. I don't think so.

[Lagomorph]

67. So the Mosue/community center should have a shooting range too?

Or can we just go to Ground Zero and dump a mag or two at lunch? Maybe just shoot down Broadway, wait, make it Wall Street and I'm OK with it.

[Chico Man]

74. It is the right to bear arms.

Murderous rampages are not protected by the Constitution, and for good reason.

[seattleblue]

69. If you are favor of the mosque you are using a bad argument for DU

Most on DU do not support the 2nd amendment as its popularly (and legally) thought of.

[Chico Man]

72. Wow

Amazing someone actually wrote that. "A bad argument for DU". Sweet.