6 ms·

> I don't know of any 2nd amendment supporters who are also not strong 1st and 4th supporters Are you sure? For instance, on cultural grounds, I'd guess that t

by fpgeek 13y ago

> I don't know of any 2nd amendment supporters who are also not strong 1st and 4th supporters Are you sure? For instance, on cultural grounds, I'd guess that there are plenty of 2nd amendment supporters who would be happy to ban flag-burning...

it_luddite 13y ago
Unfortunately, there are significant amounts of people on both sides of any debate, much less this one, with either blinders on or have selective vision. As a strict constructionist, I affirm the right of anyone to burn any flag, anyone to "protest" at a funeral, as well as PRISM being unconstitutional. Further, I believe that there is not an explicit "right to privacy" and therefore there is not a right to privacy. Them's my blinders!
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Further, I believe that there is not an explicit "right to privacy" and therefore there is not a right to privacy. So are you saying that a "right" has to be explicitly spelled out in the BoR in order to be a right? If that's what you mean, then how the heck does a "strict constructionist" get that to jibe with the 9th Amendment? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    Yeah, that's the funny thing about the Ninth. It pretty much says, you shall not construe the other amendments strictly. Kinda puts strict constructionists in a bind -- which was clearly its purpose.
    - vbuterin 13y ago
      Not really; strict constitutionalists can still say that the government should never infringe on amendments 1...8,10, and if it can intrude even less (ie. add more rights) then that's great. In fact, I think that was the whole point of writing the constitution that way.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >So are you saying that a "right" has to be explicitly spelled out in the BoR in order to be a right? This is why Madison thought the Bill of Rights was a mistake. The rest of the document was written as a list of delineated powers - "this is what the federal government can do". That's much, much more restrictive than "this is what the federal government can't do". He thought the BoR would lead people into thinking the federal government is allowed to do anything it isn't prohibited from doing. I think history has born him out, too. I'd much rather see courts asking the question "is this on the list of things the federal government can do?" rather than "does it pass muster on 2A or 4A grounds?" Of course if that were the case 2/3 the federal government would go away. Not a bad thing, IMO.
talmand 13y ago
I'd guess there are plenty of 2nd amendment supporters, on cultural grounds, would have no problem with flag-burning. They may not like it and publicly disagree with it, but they wouldn't stop it. What's your point?
mindcrime 13y ago
I'd guess that there are plenty of 2nd amendment supporters who would be happy to ban flag-burning... There are indeed, and I know more than a few of them. They post on the same gun forums I do. What you see among the "pro gun" crowd is a pretty clearly ideological divide between Libertarians and traditional Conservatives. The Libertarians take the 1A, 4A, 5A, etc. just as seriously as the 2A, whereas the more traditional Conservatives tend - in my experience - to be a bit more narrowly focused. It's unfortunate, but real. That said, I take it as encouraging that I feel like I'm seeing more libertarian thought and less of the "yee-haw, let's kill that fag" kind of stuff on one of the NC centric gun forums I post on. And lots of people take a fairly moderate approach, offering up strong defenses of the 2A, without doing the full-on "captain redneck" thing. On a semi-related note... it's kinda sad how prevalent stereotyping - and making broad assumptions based on those stereotypes - is. For example, many people seem to assume that most active 2A advocates are, indeed, "redneck" types: from the South, with CSA flag stickers on their trucks, a Bible in their hip pocket, and a mouthful of chewing tobacco. But, while those people exist, most of the pro gun folks I know are actually well educated, level-headed, reasonable and rational.
- bostonpete 13y ago
  > many people seem to assume that most active 2A advocates What's a 2A advocate? I don't think there's any substantial opposition to the 2nd amendment itself. The main discussion surrounding 2A tends to come up any time any sort of restrictions surrounding gun control are raised. Then the crowd of people who view any sort of gun control (background checks!!) as an attack on the 2nd amendment start coming out of the woodwork. I believe that's the crowd that gets stereotyped and I don't believe they're representative of the majority of gun owners.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Most of your stereotyped gun owners do not have a categorical opposition to gun control laws. For example, most are not particularly upset with the ban on new machine guns that has been in place for many years. Rather most of the opposition that you see is against pointless laws that target particular cosmetic features of some guns ("assault weapon" laws) or actually overreaching gun laws that pop up in particular cities in particular states. There is little focus on the national laws that are already in place, laws that particular states have or are trying to have are what get the attention of the gun lobbyists.

by fpgeek 13y ago

it_luddite 13y ago

Unfortunately, there are significant amounts of people on both sides of any debate, much less this one, with either blinders on or have selective vision. As a strict constructionist, I affirm the right of anyone to burn any flag, anyone to "protest" at a funeral, as well as PRISM being unconstitutional. Further, I believe that there is not an explicit "right to privacy" and therefore there is not a right to privacy. Them's my blinders!

mindcrime 13y ago
Further, I believe that there is not an explicit "right to privacy" and therefore there is not a right to privacy. So are you saying that a "right" has to be explicitly spelled out in the BoR in order to be a right? If that's what you mean, then how the heck does a "strict constructionist" get that to jibe with the 9th Amendment? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  Yeah, that's the funny thing about the Ninth. It pretty much says, you shall not construe the other amendments strictly. Kinda puts strict constructionists in a bind -- which was clearly its purpose.
  - vbuterin 13y ago
    Not really; strict constitutionalists can still say that the government should never infringe on amendments 1...8,10, and if it can intrude even less (ie. add more rights) then that's great. In fact, I think that was the whole point of writing the constitution that way.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >So are you saying that a "right" has to be explicitly spelled out in the BoR in order to be a right? This is why Madison thought the Bill of Rights was a mistake. The rest of the document was written as a list of delineated powers - "this is what the federal government can do". That's much, much more restrictive than "this is what the federal government can't do". He thought the BoR would lead people into thinking the federal government is allowed to do anything it isn't prohibited from doing. I think history has born him out, too. I'd much rather see courts asking the question "is this on the list of things the federal government can do?" rather than "does it pass muster on 2A or 4A grounds?" Of course if that were the case 2/3 the federal government would go away. Not a bad thing, IMO.

talmand 13y ago

I'd guess there are plenty of 2nd amendment supporters, on cultural grounds, would have no problem with flag-burning. They may not like it and publicly disagree with it, but they wouldn't stop it. What's your point?

mindcrime 13y ago

I'd guess that there are plenty of 2nd amendment supporters who would be happy to ban flag-burning... There are indeed, and I know more than a few of them. They post on the same gun forums I do. What you see among the "pro gun" crowd is a pretty clearly ideological divide between Libertarians and traditional Conservatives. The Libertarians take the 1A, 4A, 5A, etc. just as seriously as the 2A, whereas the more traditional Conservatives tend - in my experience - to be a bit more narrowly focused. It's unfortunate, but real. That said, I take it as encouraging that I feel like I'm seeing more libertarian thought and less of the "yee-haw, let's kill that fag" kind of stuff on one of the NC centric gun forums I post on. And lots of people take a fairly moderate approach, offering up strong defenses of the 2A, without doing the full-on "captain redneck" thing. On a semi-related note... it's kinda sad how prevalent stereotyping - and making broad assumptions based on those stereotypes - is. For example, many people seem to assume that most active 2A advocates are, indeed, "redneck" types: from the South, with CSA flag stickers on their trucks, a Bible in their hip pocket, and a mouthful of chewing tobacco. But, while those people exist, most of the pro gun folks I know are actually well educated, level-headed, reasonable and rational.

bostonpete 13y ago
> many people seem to assume that most active 2A advocates What's a 2A advocate? I don't think there's any substantial opposition to the 2nd amendment itself. The main discussion surrounding 2A tends to come up any time any sort of restrictions surrounding gun control are raised. Then the crowd of people who view any sort of gun control (background checks!!) as an attack on the 2nd amendment start coming out of the woodwork. I believe that's the crowd that gets stereotyped and I don't believe they're representative of the majority of gun owners.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Most of your stereotyped gun owners do not have a categorical opposition to gun control laws. For example, most are not particularly upset with the ban on new machine guns that has been in place for many years. Rather most of the opposition that you see is against pointless laws that target particular cosmetic features of some guns ("assault weapon" laws) or actually overreaching gun laws that pop up in particular cities in particular states. There is little focus on the national laws that are already in place, laws that particular states have or are trying to have are what get the attention of the gun lobbyists.