Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: "Right To Bear Arms"  (Read 56827 times)

w e i s e r

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
TEA WITH THE QUEEN
« Reply #50 on: May 04, 2007, 12:58:02 AM »
The Queen-Bush meeting thing reminded me of this joke

While visiting England, George Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people.

Bush asks how she knows if they're intelligent.

"I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate."

Bush watches as the Queen phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister, please answer this question: your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?"

Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am."

"Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"

Bush nods: "Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"

Bush, upon returning to Washington, decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. Bush summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me."

"Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?"

Bush poses the question: "Uhh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?"

Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior Republican senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem.

"Now lookee here, son, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course."

Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House, finds George Bush, and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!"

And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb *&^%, it's Tony Blair!"

mastercard

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Right To Bear Arms
« Reply #51 on: May 04, 2007, 10:18:14 PM »

In America, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms -- borrowed out of the Elizabethan era in England which granted Protestants the right to bear arms. Interpretations of the meaning of the right are numerous and of many perspectives. What does not seem to be controverted is the fact that, based on when the right to bear arms became part of the law of the United States, it was meant to address a situation where the people would be confronted with foreign aggression and the citizenry -- as a militia -- should be in a position to defend the country. This seems clear from the very wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, to wit: \"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\"

In the 1700s, when America was a country in its infancy and its ability to defend itself from another foreign ruler was fragile, the right to bear arms in order to maintain a mass-based militia made sense. But in this day and age, when the United States government owns and controls one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive -- and deadliest -- weaponry and defense systems in the world, is there really a need for an armed mass-based militia? The answer is obvious, isn\'t it? If the right to bear arms is taken in that context, then it becomes an obsolete concept.

It is, therefore, not very surprising that the US courts came up with a new interpretation. In Rex v. Gardner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said: \"Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the \'people\' [or \'citizen\' or \'citizens\'] \"to bear arms in defense of themselves [or \'himself\'] and the state,\' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage \'bear arms\' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.\"

To my mind, this deflection from the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment is intentional or, at the very least, a subconscious justification. It is curious to note how this singular provision in the American Constitution seems to be responsible for the rise of a new economic power and political influence -- the gun industry. America, today, is the top supplier of guns and ammunition worldwide. In more ways than the average person can imagine, guns keep the American economy alive. Take away the right of the individual to bear arms and the culture that sustains these arms manufacturers die.

The \"modern\" definition, therefore, of the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the sustenance of this culture. If the right of the individual to bear arms is taken away, what reason will gun manufacturers have to continue making guns? To export them? To sell them in countries marked by internal conflict? That wouldn\'t look too good, would it? It would look too much as though America was merely exporting violence rather than propagating a culture that says every man has the right to defend himself with the use of a handgun. In short, the Second Amendment is both the proof and the reason to convince foreign countries to buy American-made arms. Yes, it is about business. It is about money.


The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla\'s mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.

Ronald Hyatt

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
  • Hedgehog
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Arm Bears"
« Reply #52 on: May 04, 2007, 11:11:29 PM »
"Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech that you like, freedom of speech protects speech that you hate."
http://imdb.com/name/nm0000465/bio

rite

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Right To Bear Arms
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2007, 07:20:02 AM »

The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla\\\'s mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.


Interesting juxtaposition, mastercard! ;)

fork in the ass

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2007, 01:53:27 AM »
Indeed, master!

lawn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Right To Bear Arms
« Reply #55 on: May 13, 2007, 10:37:32 AM »

The thing with Second Amendment is that it is being interpreted in such a way as to justify the right to bear arms. Pretty much the same way the First Amendment was used to protect the right of a publisher to sell, say, a book on how to become a hit man. Per chance, do you remember the movie Deliberate Intent? It is based on the book by First Amendment scholar and law professor Ron Smolla, detailing the 1997 Paladin Enterprises, Inc. vs. Rice case. It concerns Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book that gave step by step instructions on how to murder, and the killing of 3 people in 1993 by someone who followed those instructions.

There was an unusual agreement between the author and the publisher. The author, who usually assumes liability for their work, was not only free of liability but also had their identity protected. This stemmed from the publisher wanting Hit Man, which was originally conceived as a novel, to be written as a users manual. The two sides of this case, whether this went beyond the rights of free speech, or was protected by the First Amendment, and how Smolla mind was changed from one view to another, is the central focus of the film. It also details the murder of the 3 people, and how Hit Man played a part in it. Some people think the case murdered the First Amendment along with the victims, others think it went way beyond its boundaries.


I completely agree! I did a simple Google search and found some troubling lines from this book,

Quote
A WOMAN RECENTLY ASKED HOW I could, in good conscience, write an instruction book on murder. [236]

"How can you live with yourself if someone uses what you write to go out and take a human life?" she whined.

I am afraid she was quite offended by my answer.

It is my opinion that the professional hit man fills a need in society and is, at times, the only alternative for "personal" justice. Moreover, if my advice and the proven methods in this book are followed, certainly no one will ever know.

The book is so effectively written that its protagonist seems actually to be present at the planning, commission, and cover-up of the murders the book inspires. Illustrative of the nature and duration of the criminal partnership established between Hit Man and its readers who murder is the following "dialogue" that takes place when the murderer returns from his first killing:

Quote
I'm sure your emotions have run full scale over the past few days or weeks.
There was a fleeting moment just before you pulled the trigger when you wondered if lightning would strike you then and there. And afterwards, a short burst of panic as you looked quickly around you to make sure no witnesses were lurking.

But other than that, you felt absolutely nothing. And you are shocked by that nothingness. You had expected this moment to be a spectacular point in your life. . . .

The first few seconds of nothingness give you an almost uncontrollable urge to laugh out loud. You break into a wide grin. Everything you have been taught about life and its value was a fallacy.

helga

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Visits the Colonies
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2007, 01:34:12 AM »

Me too hates English! In fact, most of the things that are wrong with America are so because of the English heritage. Man, English people are weird, eccentric, opinionated, boisterous. The English accent is funny and their pronunciation really sucks.


LOL!

solicitor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Right To Bear Arms
« Reply #57 on: May 26, 2007, 06:03:54 AM »

[...]


The first few seconds of nothingness give you an almost uncontrollable urge to laugh out loud. You break into a wide grin. Everything you have been taught about life and its value was a fallacy.


The average payment for a "hit" is $15,000 -- what a shame! I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!

Lynn Cox

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Right To Bear Arms
« Reply #58 on: May 26, 2007, 06:54:34 AM »

The average payment for a "hit" is $15,000 -- what a shame! I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


??

Flashman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: As American as apple pie
« Reply #59 on: May 26, 2007, 09:25:47 AM »
Yes, it is about business. It is about money.

If we look at America's modern history -- at how it has supported political factions in other countries to overthrow their governments -- the business angle becomes even clearer.

This kind of paranoid anti-business military-industrial complex rant is not very original or valid for a number of reasons.  The main reason is that you can use it to support any argument.  Take, for example, abortion.  One could make the argument that the constitutional right to choose to have an abortion is about business and money.  No abortions means no money for abortion providers, ergo there is a strong financial interest in making abortions legal.
 
   But that's a really stupid argument because it completely ignores the impact that Supreme Court justices (or the federal courts for that matter) have in making policy on their own.  Are you seriously suggesting that every time a court upholds the right to bear arms that the judges are calculating how much this is going to cost the arms industry?  They're not up for election, so campaign funding is moot.  You forget that China and the former Soviet Union (and now Russia), are major arms exporters and have been for decades despite not having individual gun ownership rights.  Can you explain this disparity or will you at least concede that you are overreaching big time?  Even if the SCOTUS banned individual gun ownership tomorrow, it would have zero impact on arms sales abroad.  The only thing that would stop that would be a ridiculous change in US policy or Congressional action.