Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Constitutional question?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:45 PM
Original message
A Constitutional question?
We often argue here about the 2nd Amendment and the rights it affords versus the safety of society. The various arguments for and against are numerous and SCOTUS is about to give us, hopefully, a clearer interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many of the arguments used against the 2nd Amendment could also be used against the 4th Amendment. Society would be safer if we allowed greater encroachment of our right against unlawful search and seizure. If societies safety is our primary concern then allowing police to search randomly and at will, will in fact result in fewer illegal guns on the streets, fewer drugs on the streets, fewer criminals on the streets, lower numbers of gun deaths, lower numbers of overdoses on illegal drugs. These are clearly all positive things for society to strive for and it would after all only be an inconvenience to the law abiding yes you would be searched sometimes and that would be inconvenient but wouldn't the sacrifice be worth it for a safer society. To be clear I think this is a horrible idea but when you apply the same arguments made against the 2nd Amendment it would seem to follow the logic of those who find the 2nd Amendment distasteful.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. what your fourth amendment actually says
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 07:21 PM by iverglas


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


It contains internal guidelines: *unreasonable* search and seizure, and provisions governing warrants that permit searches and seizures.

Your better analogy is the first amendment:
Amendment I

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.

You Congress has in fact made a brazillion laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the presse, etc. etc., even though there are no internal guidelines or exceptions.

The freedom of speech is expressed as absolute in that amendment -- NO LAW ABRIDGING -- and yet there are all sorts of abridgements.

So the second amendment would be different ... why?


The question is what abridgements / impairments / limitations / interferences are justifiable, not whether there may be any.



typotypotypo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. You are right in terms of wording.
I guess I was thinking more in comparison in cost (freedom) and benefit (safety) to society. I haven't seen many on here arguing for no restrictions. I think the current restrictions are largely ok at least in my state.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Society would be "safer" if we had no rights at all.
There was very little street crime in the old Soviet Union,thus making is "safe" in a sense, but at what cost. I am sure some Soviet residents preferred the "safety", but recall that at the demise of the Soviet Union, many people had kept hidden pre-Soviet Russian national flags for many years and I am ssure at great risk.

If you always stay behing locked doors you will be safe, but you are giving up your freedom.

Much of the UK now has restrictive laws on speech,as well as guns and I am sure more restrictions on other things they thought were "rights" will follow. The problem is that their violent crime has increased despite their restrictive government.
I have seen reports that Australia has a beginning movement to repealsome of its gun restrictions, and I know many in Canada who simply have not obeyed the laws and kept their guns.


mark

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You are correct.
I guess that's my point. Many that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment don't see gun ownership as a freedom I guess. Maybe someone will post their view on it.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. the problem, the problem, the problem

Much of the UK now has restrictive laws on speech,as well as guns and I am sure more restrictions on other things they thought were "rights" will follow. The problem is that their violent crime has increased despite their restrictive government.

The problem, actually, is that you and your ilk think it is acceptable in civilized society to spew this kind of false shit around in public.


I know many in Canada who simply have not obeyed the laws and kept their guns.

Yeah, right. You know many, do you? On a first-name basis maybe?


There was very little street crime in the old Soviet Union,thus making is "safe" in a sense, but at what cost.

Hey now, there is complete freedom in a few places in the world as we speak -- just no functioning government with laws and that kinda stuff at all. They're "free" ... "in a sense", would you say?


If you always stay behing locked doors you will be safe, but you are giving up your freedom.

Funny how that's actually the way it works when there is complete freedom. All that freedom, no safety. Lots o' locked doors.

If YOU lived where all that freedom reigned, would you be wandering the streets at night? Hmm. I wonder whether you're not quite so fond of freedom as you'd like us to think, that you would give it up so readily. 'Cause I think you would.

I think when it was YOUR safety that was in issue, you'd be singing a different tune.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. If YOU lived where all that freedom reigned, would you be wandering the streets at night?
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 07:30 PM by Fire_Medic_Dave
Why not? I'd have all the guns I wanted so I wouldn't have much to be worried about. Unless it was some crazy place like Australia with all those scary snakes and spiders, then I'd probably stay in at night.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. actually

I was thinking of some crazy place like Somalia ...

You'd have all the guns you wanted ... and so would everybody who wanted your guns and anything else you might have ...

Freedom freedom FREEEEEDOM!!

What's a little temporary safety when there's all that freeeeeeedom to be had, eh?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'd need a whole lot of guns in Somalia.
It would probably take care of my adrenaline fix though.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. We already killed Aidid, so going to Somalia isn't of much interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Thus the differential between theoretical freedom and practical freedom
Something the conservatives harp on a lot. "Oh, look, we've kept government out of the private insurance industry! You're freeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

Um, no. I'm free from government regulation, which is completely non-indicitive of whether or not I'm free, insurance-wise.

I'm still dealing with the insurance industry, which is not making me free.


Just as an example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. and a useful one

The word "regulation" has been lost from the USAmerican public vocabulary, to the detriment of everyone there in very many respects.

My own advice for getting yrselves a health care system has been "regulate regulate regulate", for starters, for quite some time. And Joe Biden agrees with me. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Have you ever read these?
Joe Republican

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."



And sort of the corollary to Joe Republican:
Joe Conservative

Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that each flush & brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water.

Joe steps outside and coughs–the pollution is especially bad today, but the smokiest cars are the cheapest ones, so everyone buys ‘em. Joe Conservative checks to make sure he has enough toll money for the 3 different private roads he must drive to work. There is no public transportation, so traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an hour.

On the way, he drops his 12 year old daughter off at the clothing factory she works at. Paying for kids to go to private school until they’re 18 is a luxury, and Joe needs the extra income coming in. Times are hard and there’re no social safety nets.

He gets to work 5 minutes late and misses the call for Christian prayer, and is immediately docked by his employer. He is not feeling well today, but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his government provide it, and paying for it himself is really expensive, since he has a precondition. He just hopes for the best.

Joe’s workday is 12 hours long, because there is no regulation over working hours, and Joe will lose his job if he complains or unionizes. Today is an especially bad day. Joe’s manager demands that he work until midnight, a 16 hour day. Joe does, knowing that he’ll lose his job if he does not.

Finally, after midnight, Joe gets to pick up his daughter and go home. His daughter shows him the deep cut she got on the industrial sewing machine today. Joe is outraged and asks why she doesn’t have metal mesh gloves or other protection. She says the company will not provide it and she’ll have to pay for it out of her own pocket. Joe looks at the wound and decides they’ll use an over the counter disinfectant and bandages until it heals. She’ll have a scar, but getting stitches at the emergency room is expensive.

His daughter also complains that the manager made suggestive overtures towards her. Joe counsels her to be a “good girl” and not rock the boat, or she’ll get fired and they’ll be out the income.

His daughter says she can’t wait until she’s 18 so she can vote for change or go to the Iraq War.

They get home and there’s a message from his elderly father who can’t afford to pay his medical or heating bills. Joe can hear him coughing and shivering.

Joe turns on the radio and the top story is a proposal in Congress to raise the voting age to 25. A rare liberal opinionator states that it’s an attempt to keep power out of the hands of working class Americans. The conservative host immediately quashes him, calling him “a utopian idealist,” and agreeing that people aren’t mature enough to make good choices until they’re at least 25.

Joe chuckles at the wine-swilling, cheese eating liberal egghead and thinks, “Thank God I live in America where I have freedom!”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC