Phoenixphire
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I am frustrated with this discussion.
I think it is because one view point is of a black and white perspective, and the other is one of shades of grey.
I have been attacked, with comments that I must be saying the words in the Constitution don't mean anything until nine judges say it does. Really? You think that because I don't think that every person should not have unlimited access to any weapon, that I think the Constitution is pointless?
It is not a black and white scenario. Nothing in this world is black and white. There are degrees of severity, degrees of risk.
Stating that I must hate the Constitution, because I respect the fact that the Constitution itself declares that the Supreme Court must decide how the Constitution applies to actual Cases and Controversies that arise, is silly.
I could imply the same, that you must be evil, as you don't respect the authority of the Supreme Court, those people appointed by elected officials, as dictated in THE CONSTITUTION. I could state that since you think the Constitution is so flawed as to provide the Supreme Court with the authority to decide how the Constitution applies to real events, you should lobby to change it.
But I don't make these points, simply because they are silly. I don't think that because you don't like the idea of "9 people controlling the rights of the people", that you are evil. I just disagree that that is the case. The Supreme Court can only declare laws unconstitutional, they can not make new ones... So, every law that has infringed on our rights is only partially the responsibility of the Court. The Legislatures and Congress that created them, and the Governors and President that signed them are at fault as well.
And, I agree that there are many laws currently in place that unduly restrict the right to bear arms. But, this was not the object of the original discussion. The point was that some were saying that ANY restriction, at ANY time, on ANY form of armament was unconstitutional. That was the point on which I disagreed. The premise of my argument was that the text of the Constitution is not a LITERAL TEXT. It is a Constitution, not a law. It lies out IDEAS, not STATUES. That is what no one here seems to understand. The Constitution is designed to be INTERPRETED and APPLIED. Statues are literal text. They are SPECIFIC in nature. When you apply a STATUTORY reading to a CONSTITUTIONAL text, you end up with arguments like this, where people want to declare that there is an ABSOLUTE being declared by the text, when there isn't, but rather a fundamental, core idea. An IDEA that needs to be applied to a real world. And the best thing is: Our Constitution delineates how it should be done. By appointed justices, on a Supreme Court of the land.
That is why you are wrong when you state that the Constitution is a statutory text, a black and white "it-means-what-it-says". It simply isn't. It is a constitutional text, by its very design in need of interpretation and application.
The other point I want to make is that one should not think in black and white. This is not a absolute world. We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree burns. We have 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder, as well as degrees manslaughter. We have rare, medium rare, medium, done, and well done steaks. We have white, yellow, red, brown, and black people. This world is full of degrees of severity and differentiation.
Until you see that restricting access to a sidearm is not equal to restricting access to anti-aircraft missiles, you will continue to be one of the ones pointlessly doing this: :banghead:
I am frustrated with this discussion.
I think it is because one view point is of a black and white perspective, and the other is one of shades of grey.
I have been attacked, with comments that I must be saying the words in the Constitution don't mean anything until nine judges say it does. Really? You think that because I don't think that every person should not have unlimited access to any weapon, that I think the Constitution is pointless?
It is not a black and white scenario. Nothing in this world is black and white. There are degrees of severity, degrees of risk.
Stating that I must hate the Constitution, because I respect the fact that the Constitution itself declares that the Supreme Court must decide how the Constitution applies to actual Cases and Controversies that arise, is silly.
I could imply the same, that you must be evil, as you don't respect the authority of the Supreme Court, those people appointed by elected officials, as dictated in THE CONSTITUTION. I could state that since you think the Constitution is so flawed as to provide the Supreme Court with the authority to decide how the Constitution applies to real events, you should lobby to change it.
But I don't make these points, simply because they are silly. I don't think that because you don't like the idea of "9 people controlling the rights of the people", that you are evil. I just disagree that that is the case. The Supreme Court can only declare laws unconstitutional, they can not make new ones... So, every law that has infringed on our rights is only partially the responsibility of the Court. The Legislatures and Congress that created them, and the Governors and President that signed them are at fault as well.
And, I agree that there are many laws currently in place that unduly restrict the right to bear arms. But, this was not the object of the original discussion. The point was that some were saying that ANY restriction, at ANY time, on ANY form of armament was unconstitutional. That was the point on which I disagreed. The premise of my argument was that the text of the Constitution is not a LITERAL TEXT. It is a Constitution, not a law. It lies out IDEAS, not STATUES. That is what no one here seems to understand. The Constitution is designed to be INTERPRETED and APPLIED. Statues are literal text. They are SPECIFIC in nature. When you apply a STATUTORY reading to a CONSTITUTIONAL text, you end up with arguments like this, where people want to declare that there is an ABSOLUTE being declared by the text, when there isn't, but rather a fundamental, core idea. An IDEA that needs to be applied to a real world. And the best thing is: Our Constitution delineates how it should be done. By appointed justices, on a Supreme Court of the land.
That is why you are wrong when you state that the Constitution is a statutory text, a black and white "it-means-what-it-says". It simply isn't. It is a constitutional text, by its very design in need of interpretation and application.
The other point I want to make is that one should not think in black and white. This is not a absolute world. We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree burns. We have 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder, as well as degrees manslaughter. We have rare, medium rare, medium, done, and well done steaks. We have white, yellow, red, brown, and black people. This world is full of degrees of severity and differentiation.
Until you see that restricting access to a sidearm is not equal to restricting access to anti-aircraft missiles, you will continue to be one of the ones pointlessly doing this: :banghead: