Originally Posted by Slims

Now that's just insulting. I am not a gun-fetishist, though they are certainly a hobby. By mentioning that the pro-gun people who presented 'data' in this thread are in a different category from mainstream gun owners is an ad hominem attack, of sorts.

Sure, the stats I quoted were 'meager' as they were in response to even more vague statistics about how good life is in countries that don't have guns. I am not a statistician, and I am not trying to womp anybody over the head with my knowledge of numbers. Rather, I pulled some simple, basic stats, and presented those. Sure, they may be off a little, but by and large, most modern countries have a pretty good idea of how many people are murdered in a given year. That you can draw any conclusion from them was exactly my point. I wasn't presenting an argument that more guns=less crime, only that the comparisons to Europe were far less black and white than they were presented.

Strict constructionism is not morally bankrupt. There is nothing in the constructionist view to prevent the constitution from being changed. However, the constitution was deliberately written to make it difficult to amend, requiring more than a passing majority or a short lived sentiment for a particular change. This lethargy was designed to make sure we were really committed before we changed the document our country was founded upon, rather than changing it with every new administration. To simply 'interpret' it differently according to whichever way the wind is blowing is not only morally bankrupt as you accused those like me of being, but intellectually dishonest, and fails to provide a clear, unchanging guidline of right and wrong. The constitution is supremely adaptable, to the point where the people can legally implement a dictatorship or monarchy, with a simple amendment.
That we don't change the constitution more often is due to the fact that most of the time people are nearly evenly divided over issues such as the one discussed in this thread.


Oh, and Roachboy, I will be happy to read anything you can show me that indicates the second amendment was not written with the intent of arming the people. Prefereably articles written by those who took part in writing the constitution and the formation of our republic. I will keep an open mind because maybe I have been swayed by the Gun-fetishists who actually created our government.

I do not elevate the second amendment to the 'status of the transcendent.' I don't believe it is any more or less important than the other Amendmendts in the bill of rights. I am violently opposed to some of the recent attacks which have weakened some of our other rights. However, we are currently discussing the 2'nd, and as such I have not discussed the others.

I welcome a discussion with a mediocre undergraduate, as I used to be one. Please tell him to be gentle as I am sure his powers of observation will be all the sharper as he is in college and thus knows everything. Again, why insult those you disagree with?

As far as all the 'arguments' presented, I can sum it up like this: Like it or not the constitution refers to 'the people' several times, and in each of those cases (including the 2'nd amendment now) the supreme court has ruled 'the people' refers to *gasp* the people, and that when the authors of the constitution wanted to refer to a different group, they were perfectly capable of articulating it. For instance, when they refer to congress, they say "congress." So when a "pro-gun fetishist who magically believes owning a gun gives him political agency" such as myself opens a book and reads the constitution, it seems quite clear that the second Amendment simply enumerates the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose for which was because it was necessary to maintain an armed populace for the Militia due to fears about the federal government mainting a large standing army. If you don't like it, try to change it, but dont' try to wave your magic wand and reinvent the english language.

Oh, and furthermore, nobody on this forum has suggested that owning a firearm suddenly makes you *somebody* and that you will all of a sudden be able to get things done. It doesn't.

Have enough intellectual honesty to either present your own argument, critique someone elses, or read politely. Simply denegrating those who have challenged a particular point of view is not a very classy move.