Shooting at the Empire State Building

Read Madison's "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787" and the Federalist Papers, particularly where Madison writes about the danger of "factions" in a direct democracy as opposed to a representative republic with "more capable" elected officials having responsibility for making laws that may limit some individual rights (but with checks and balances) for the greater good of the republic.
--- merged: Sep 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM ---

I'm left baffled again that a person open to discussing how to reduce gun related violence cant accept the idea that restricting high capacity ammo clips would make it less likely that one could spray a room with dozens of rounds/minute and wounding and/or killing dozens of people w/o reloading.

 

The assignation of power in the constitution remains ambiguous to a degree. If it wasn't, there'd be no need for judicial and constitutional interpretation. One could argue that the Constitution was written with a certain amount of ambiguity, as an intentional nod to future generations that they were of the realization that circumstances would change and would require a document which allowed for revisitation and revision.

You couldn't be more wrong in your insinuated assessment that the framers were unconcerned about "common good" vs. "individual rights." When the smoke cleared, it was their hope that they'd managed to find a balance between the two.

Your interpretation is only your interpretation. There are others, and unless you are a narcissistic sociopath, you certainly must realize that other interpretations can be just as valid, or at least as worthy of respect and consideration as your own.

I certainly respect and consider your point of view and find myself in agreement over many of the points you and others have made about the more generalized view of government interference, but this is a debate which is attempting to focus on the more detailed aspects of this issue. I'm sorry you can't manage to free yourself from the strict hold your broad ideals have around you, but you're failing to gain any ground with the unwavering stance you are taking in this particular debate.

 

the only mention I found of 'capable' with regards to any entity (note that 'more capable' was not used, 'most capable' was) did not reference any notion that their responsibility of making laws would allow the limitation of rights.

prohibition, war on drugs....i'm left baffled that people think that this crap would actually work if they tried it just one more time. It's called insanity.
--- merged: Sep 2, 2012 at 9:01 PM ---

they called that the 'amendment' process, not the 'reinterpretation' process.

there are numerous commentaries and documents that stress the importance of the powers of government being able to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It would also stand to reason that during the debates, when it was argued that the judicial system was to be set up so that an innocent individual would not have their liberty taken away, even if it meant a hundred guilty going free, that they were secretly arguing that the individual rights of citizens could be limited or restricted for the common good. My stance is unwavering because the founders and commentaries presented to the people for ratification argued for that very stance.
--- merged: Sep 2, 2012 at 9:05 PM ---

I don't believe I said that the founders weren't well read or that they rejected Rousseau. What i'm saying is that the framers went to very great lengths to be as precise as possible, presenting to we the people exactly what the government would be allowed to to, but most importantly, what they would NOT be allowed to do. Unless you can present some cogent argument through a founders notes or documents that a social contract where rights were fluid depending on society's needs was the intention of the constitution, I have to reject the notion out of hand for no evidence.

 

were it not for the fictions about the state of nature that were developed by political philosphers of the 17th-18th century, the framers of the constitution wouldn't have had a device to use in anchoring claims about natural right. but maybe you should ask them in the next seance you have that raises them from the dead. because without seances, you can't talk about original intent.

but of course there's a problem with seances, isn't there.

 

If the framers wanted a weak central government with limited powers, they could have simply reaffirmed the Articles of Confederation and the supremacy of state sovereignty and the concept of the US not as a nation, but as a "friendship among the states." Yet they recognized that a strong central government was necessary to guarantee the disparate interests of all the "people" and the nation.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. ​

​

Further, the Bill of Rights in itself was a compromise to ensure ratification.

The "original intent" ideologues only choose to see what enforces their rigid beliefs and ignore the wisdom of the broader understanding and desire of the framers.

 

Prohibition was an extreme response and unless I'm mistaken, no one here is suggesting that all firearms or all ammunition be prohibited. I agree that the so-called war on drugs has been a disaster, due in large part to the almost total reliance of government and law enforcement on the punishment of offenders to the exclusion of treatment options. I believe many here have stated that accessible and affordable mental health treatment is a key preventative factor in addressing this particular problem. To do nothing to address prevention on any other front is insanity.

.
The Supreme Court makes dozens of decisions a year based on interpretations of the Constitution. The last time an amendment was added was the 27th in 1992. Do you believe that judicial and legislative interpretation is unconstitutional overall or only when it fails to favor your cause(s)?