.

[Roger Bacon]

.

[Metabolic]

1:38, interesting how the interpretation given by the Attorney is anachronic, Im not sure how interpretation of legal text works in the common law systems, but in the continental law systems the will of the legislator at the time is not relevant to the understanding of the spirit of the law in contemporary application.  Such a literal interpretation would deem unuseful many legal texts that were obviously not written under the technical and academic circumstances of today, also, considering laws are made to regulate the future (retroactivity being the exception), it would make sense not to interpret them statically "through the eyes of the past".

You merricans are a funny folk.

 

[MikMaq]

I just america, such great ideas. Government gets to powerful guns can be used to stop them.

I think it'd be a fascinating movie, a bunch of red neck jack offs thinking their the duke himself, up against stealth bombers, tomahawk cruise missiles, aerial drones,  and nuclear submarines, .

[kh300]

.

[Metabolic]

It's not anacronic, it's an either/or.

Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years, and won't for the foreseeable future.  As far as interpretation goes, this is just a relevant today as it was 222 years ago.

You have no idea what interpretation of legal texts is, and you clearly have no idea what it actually means to give sense to a law and all its practical implicancies.  This type of interpretation entails, amongst other things, that you can actually KNOW what the legislator was thinking in his mind at that time (which is pretty pretty hard) and that laws have a determined fixed scope of application and new situations are NOT covered by them because, of course, the legislator was not thinking of them. You think your forefathers foresaw or predicted the attrocities that this ammendment produced? No, hence it is reasonable and logicalnot to follow their literal intentions and give interpretations according to the context. Now, there are people who follow this line of interpretation, no Civil Code today does though and the vast majority of the doctrine doesnt either.  Refer to Joseph Rass, H. Hart, etc.  I am saying this with all my good intentions, it is MUCH HARDER than you think to read and apply the law, precisely because of events like this.

Then to the second part, Militias, the defense of the people by the people (notice the ammendment refers to the regular civilian not the military forces) against other states and you own state, is NOT relevant today, not in any reasonable way, whether you like it or not.

p.s.: new legislations are constantly being approved precisely becaouse of this, the need to adjust the text to the context when the text does not provide good solutions (wether because we dont know what it really says, or because its just impractical, etc).  One of the most common flaws of laws is the obscurity of its language, hence why contenmporary laws tend to be descrptive as fuck and long as fuck (much like contemporary contracts). 

[magikusar]

awesome!!!!!

[The True Adonis]

This is 100 percent accurate.  Another point I would add is that the 2nd Amendment was put there as a right for Citizens to join alongside the military if need be in times of conflict or defense.  The Founders made sure there would be no requirement to take up Arms in times of defense and that the Citizenry did not have to rely on the Government to do it nor to tell them if they can do so for themselves.

[Twaddle]

An armed militia seems to work well for Switzerland.   

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

[cswol]

no the second amendment is there for citizens to defend themselves against out of control tyrannical government and politicians, adonis you need to go back and do some research you always think you know the exact answers, but you dont...........sorry bro.........

[kh300]

I love the idiots who say we don't have to worry about a foreign army. Anyone remember 9/11? or any of these other lunatics. Is it too far off to believe a group of 100 psycho's could go crazy on a large group of people? The problems will only grow if you start taking away our guns and rights. The lunatics will come out in full force as demonstrated through history.

I like the other one that we don't need high capacity magazines to protect your home. Take it from a cop, you've never shot at somebody before so shut the fuck up. Even when your life's in danger and bullets are flying at you, good luck staying calm and lining your sights up when your hearts beating 1,000,000 beats a second. If you only have 5 rounds in your chamber you wont hit shit. Even highly trained police officers get FF syndrome and drop 1,000 rounds before they hit something.

[Metabolic]

I love the idiots who say we don't have to worry about a foreign army. Anyone remember 9/11? or any of these other lunatics. Is it too far off to believe a group of 100 psycho's could go crazy on a large group of people? The problems will only grow if you start taking away our guns and rights. The lunatics will come out in full force as demonstrated through history.

I like the other one that we don't need high capacity magazines to protect your home. Take it from a cop, you've never shot at somebody before so shut the fuck up. Even when your life's in danger and bullets are flying at you, good luck staying calm and lining your sights up when your hearts beating 1,000,000 beats a second. If you only have 5 rounds in your chamber you wont hit shit. Even highly trained police officers get FF syndrome and drop 1,000 rounds before they hit something.

Yes, it is completely reasonable to think that civilians must have the right to bear arms because any day now an army will invade us and civilians must shoot highly trained military forces that use specialzed equipment.  This makes total sense, you are a totally reasonable man.  

It is also completely reasonable to think that because there is a (minimal) chance a psycho might go off right besides me we all need to carry guns, at all times, with no limits and with absolutly no interferrance or control from the state.


Did it ever cross your mind that there are OTHER ways to deal with invasions and psychos? Namely, the organized and professional military force and education? Notice how almost no other country has such a liberal gun legislation and you dont see their population all paranoid about wackos going off or invasions starting tomorrow.  Notice that its the easy access to guns that allows psychos and general poorly educated human beings to actually go on killing sprees with fire weapons, it is EVIDENTLY a double-edged sword.


Also, props to your 9-11 example, are you saying people should be allowed to carry guns on airplanes? Are you saying that if murrhicans on murrhican territory had more guns they could have somehow stopped 9/11? Why should a French or German Airline let murrican passengers carry guns on their planes (are you familiar with the concept of jurisdiction?)?

[Master Blaster]

This is 100 percent accurate.  Another point I would add is that the 2nd Amendment was put there as a right for Citizens to join alongside the military if need be in times of conflict or defense.  The Founders made sure there would be no requirement to take up Arms in times of defense and that the Citizenry did not have to rely on the Government to do it nor to tell them if they can do so for themselves.

We need a Common Enemy to reunite the various Competing Factions that wish out country Ill.

[epic_alien]

you dont need guns to take control of what america is today.  cut electricity, phones, and oil, and youll see what romney meant about the 47 percent. total chaos, and a nation screaming for help,

[Nomad]

Yes, it is completely reasonable to think that civilians must have the right to bear arms because any day now an army will invade us and civilians must shoot highly trained military forces that use specialzed equipment.  This makes total sense, you are a totally reasonable man.  

It is also completely reasonable to think that because there is a (minimal) chance a psycho might go off right besides me we all need to carry guns, at all times, with no limits and with absolutly no interferrance or control from the state.


Did it ever cross your mind that there are OTHER ways to deal with invasions and psychos? Namely, the organized and professional military force and education? Notice how almost no other country has such a liberal gun legislation and you dont see their population all paranoid about wackos going off or invasions starting tomorrow.  Notice that its the easy access to guns that allows psychos and general poorly educated human beings to actually go on killing sprees with fire weapons, it is EVIDENTLY a double-edged sword.


Also, props to your 9-11 example, are you saying people should be allowed to carry guns on airplanes? Are you saying that if murrhicans on murrhican territory had more guns they could have somehow stopped 9/11? Why should a French or German Airline let murrican passengers carry guns on their planes (are you familiar with the concept of jurisdiction?)?

Hey dumbass, there are good reasons why the Constitution prevents the gov from using the military internally as a heavily armed police force.

[Metabolic]

Hey dumbass, there are good reasons why the Constitution prevents the gov from using the military internally as a heavily armed police force.

Yes, and that good is reason is named POLICE, the socially organized force for internal social order.  Now why the fuck you brought that up, I dont know, because I never referred to that and I agree with what you posted.  I just laughed at the idea of civilians fighting against military invasions.

[Nomad]

Yes, and that good is reason is named POLICE, the socially organized force for internal social order.  Now why the fuck you brought that up, I dont know, because I never referred to that and I agree with what you posted.  I just laughed at the idea of civilians fighting against military invasions.

Cause you said :

Did it ever cross your mind that there are OTHER ways to deal with invasions and psychos? Namely, the organized and professional military force and education?

[Metabolic]

Cause you said :

Well, I can see it was not clear, but it should have said:

"ways to deal with invasions and psychos? Namely, the organized and professional military force and education, respectively?"

[Parker]

Yes, and that good is reason is named POLICE, the socially organized force for internal social order.  Now why the fuck you brought that up, I dont know, because I never referred to that and I agree with what you posted.  I just laughed at the idea of civilians fighting against military invasions.

yes, because European countries have never had foreign militaries come in and invade them. And those pictures of the Nazis in Paris, they were just sight seeing---no need for Parisians to have guns.

Also, the problem with many Euros to understand, is there is a cultural difference. Euros are used to the government doing things for them. America, since the days before the Revolutionary War are used to doing things for themselves.
Also, we had to deal with Royalty across the sea telling us what to do, then treating us like misbehaved kids, and coming on OUR soil to sort things out. Never again.

[Roger Bacon]

yes, because European countries have never had foreign militaries come in and invade them. And those pictures of the Nazis in Paris, they were just sight seeing---no need for Parisians to have guns.

Also, the problem with many Euros to understand, is there is a cultural difference. Euros are used to the government doing things for them. America, since the days before the Revolutionary War are used to doing things for themselves.
Also, we had to deal with Royalty across the sea telling us what to do, then treating us like misbehaved kids, and coming on OUR soil to sort things out. Never again.

Good post Parker!

Spot on, they absolutely cannot fathom individual sovereignty, and Self-governance.

[The True Adonis]

no the second amendment is there for citizens to defend themselves against out of control tyrannical government and politicians, adonis you need to go back and do some research you always think you know the exact answers, but you dont...........sorry bro.........

[Roger Bacon]

I think he mistakenly thought you were saying it was (only for) fighting side by side with the state.

[The True Adonis]

I think he mistakenly thought you were saying it was (only for) fighting side by side with the state.

He is a moron, so I will let it pass this one time.

[Metabolic]

You're so far off base (almost every point) in this thread that it's not even worth wasting our time debating.

I remember now... You're that idiot fellow that insisted no one knows who Thomas Jefferson was!

Im sorry brah, but you really dont know what you are talking about, in general terms, this subject matter is WAY beyond your understanding and knowledge.  Its ok you think having guns is necessary civil right, its ok you think there is a cultural aspect that differentiates you from the rest of the world, I understand that, I do.  And I understand that your anus hurts when I say Thomas Jefferson is a lesser known individual (which is true outside of America for the general population).

Im not far off on the points, Im actually spot on, just on the exact other view of the matter, and Im trying to make you trigger-happy fanatics understand that your legislation is perjudicial to yourselves, its a double edged sword and it is in no analytic or empirical manner a loss of "freedom" to control gun posession, its just a shape of freedom (much like prohibition of same sex marriage).

Then again, none of you has ever cited or quoted a single relevant American author supporting your own views, and considering you have the best 4 law schools in the world, I think its pretty pathetic you build your arguments over what this or that politician said (who are not contemporary nor thinkers), citations that you dont even understand fully.  Then again, I only care of this debate for the sake of arguing, I know you are all ultimately free to decide your own legislation and I cant force you to do what I think is correct.

Lastly, I have tried through boring walls of text, to explain why the legal interpretation you guys give to your second ammendment is absurd.  I have tried explaining why strict legislation of gun control is NOT a loss of freedom and why its dangerous.  You, on the other hand, have produced no argument what so ever besides whats shown in the video.

Go ahead, make my day and give me a reasoned thought about why strict gun legislation undermines freedom.

ps: I like the USA, I love your music, I love your movies, and I have many many friends in the DC area.  I did an internship at G. U. and study American Law for comparative purposes (specifically civil law, tort matters and contracting), so dont get me wrong, there is no hate here.

[Metabolic]

metabolic.when americans see it this way, in the wrost case where they have to defend themselves they wont take no lessons from anyone whther they can own a gun or not, then i find it understandable.

youre born into a world and had no say in the law making, see everyone has guns and thus, feel entitled to have one too.


the brasilian govt at one point advice citiznes to get guns when the crime rates have been shooting up.


but i dont want anything to do with such a society.

btw, arent there state or towns in the us where its not allowed to carry guns?

is the 2nd ammendment a federal rule-law?can states just say they dont care and disregard some ammendments?

who enforces the constitutional laws?

is the 2nd ammendment a federal rule-law?can states just say they dont care and disregard some ammendments?
In short, yes and no, but there is a LOT of specifications and details here.

who enforces the constitutional laws?
Ultimately, their Supreme Court (which is true for every state-of-law, the supreme tribunal has the last word on the application of the law to the particular case).

[deceiver]

You have no idea what interpretation of legal texts is, and you clearly have no idea what it actually means to give sense to a law and all its practical implicancies.  This type of interpretation entails, amongst other things, that you can actually KNOW what the legislator was thinking in his mind at that time (which is pretty pretty hard) and that laws have a determined fixed scope of application and new situations are NOT covered by them because, of course, the legislator was not thinking of them. You think your forefathers foresaw or predicted the attrocities that this ammendment produced? No, hence it is reasonable and logicalnot to follow their literal intentions and give interpretations according to the context. Now, there are people who follow this line of interpretation, no Civil Code today does though and the vast majority of the doctrine doesnt either.  Refer to Joseph Rass, H. Hart, etc.  I am saying this with all my good intentions, it is MUCH HARDER than you think to read and apply the law, precisely because of events like this.

Then to the second part, Militias, the defense of the people by the people (notice the ammendment refers to the regular civilian not the military forces) against other states and you own state, is NOT relevant today, not in any reasonable way, whether you like it or not.

p.s.: new legislations are constantly being approved precisely becaouse of this, the need to adjust the text to the context when the text does not provide good solutions (wether because we dont know what it really says, or because its just impractical, etc).  One of the most common flaws of laws is the obscurity of its language, hence why contenmporary laws tend to be descrptive as fuck and long as fuck (much like contemporary contracts). 

Out of pure curiosity, why not move all of it to trash and write it all over again? I must admit that as a theoretical computer scientist it sickens me to death when I hear about "interpretation" of law, especially when given law applies to situations it shouldn't aply when understood literally but it is, for some fucked up reason. I mean - law shouldn't be a poem.