- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I think America would be better off if we went more by spirit than letter. For instance, do you really think that the Founding Fathers could envision the world being like this 230+ years later? They'd also be pissed that most Americans see the Bill of Rights as a restriction on them instead of what it truly was - a restriction on government.
I think almost half of people today would be sympathizers to the crown in those days.
Well, half the people back then were supporters of the crown.
Neither will work.
Spirit of the law allows personal interpretation based on personal opinion, and we all think differently.
Letter of the law assumes that the author of the law encompassed every possible scenario, which is impossible.
Law is neither black or white, but various shades of gray.
Peoples opinions change, as does their judgement, as do our laws.
This is why we have case law, which fine tunes the laws, and allow lawyers large salaries.
Our legal system, though, is quite complex, which is a huge problem.
If your "personal opinion" of law leads to interpretation that deviates too far from the norm, it doesn't hold up. This is why we have mistrials, retrials, appeals, etc.
The law is indeed black and white, but the wiggle room isn't endless.
What's more important: The spirit of the law or the letter of the law?
Which one should be the guiding principle in our legal/justice system?
Really?
Then explain to me why the 1A and 2A amendments cannot be understood the same by everybody?
Their wording is quite simple and short.
Sorry, meant to say is indeed NOT black and white.
My bad.
However, the amendments are challenged not because of interpretation, but because of political bias. As I mentioned before, the BoR is meant to be a limitation on government, not on people. However, liberal anti-gun nuts want to use a piece of paper meant to strip federal powers to strip the people it was designed to protect.
Gottcha!
Ah, my friend, I would argue that political bias is interpretation.
Whether an individual of a group, the ideology is their opinion, yes?
Oh, if it's any jackass on the street, sure...they can have whatever opinion they want.
I just want my judges to stick somewhat close to the letter of the law. Bench-sponsored activism needs to be squashed at every instance.
Their political bias is important, and there's a system designed to make sure it is very minimal.
Sorry, meant to say is indeed NOT black and white.
My bad.
However, the amendments are challenged not because of interpretation, but because of political bias. As I mentioned before, the BoR is meant to be a limitation on government, not on people. However, liberal anti-gun nuts want to use a piece of paper meant to strip federal powers to strip the people it was designed to protect.
I would probably be labelled as one of these "liberals" that you speak. I most definitely agree that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people, and this is most definitely a good thing. However, some of these rights are not absolute, nor should they be. I am a big fan of the freedom of speech, but I think there should be certain limitations to the 1st Amendment. I am a fan of a persons right to own a gun, but I think their should be certain limitations. Should libel and slander be legal? No. Should it be legal to incite and riot? No. Should any ordinary person be able to purchase a machine gun? No. Should a mentally unstable be able to easily purchase a firearm? No.
I don't want guns to be like gum, where anyone can walk in to an establishment, pull one off the shelves, swipe a credit card and walk out. However, I'm not against the sale of machine guns because they still operate under the same rules as any other firearm. It's no more of a crime, in my opinion, to unload hundreds of bullets on innocent people with a machine gun than it is a handgun.
"Assault weapons" are no more or less deadly than any other firearm you can get out there. My main limitations involve who qualify for ownership. Felons, minors, and the mentally ill come to mind.
This is a bit off topic, but I'm actually thinking of purchasing a gun myself (I've always been open to the idea of owning a gun). Mostly for self-defense purposes and having fun at a shooting range. I'll admit, I don't know a whole lot about the types of guns, specifically. I don't know if you're the person to ask, but any recommendations?
As with any other tool, the decision on what to buy depends entirely on what its intended end use would be...
Well, the difference would be that a machine gun has a much greater potential for mass killings than a handgun would. A crazy nut with a handgun won't inflict nearly as much damage as a crazy nut with a machine gun.
This is a bit off topic, but I'm actually thinking of purchasing a gun myself (I've always been open to the idea of owning a gun). Mostly for self-defense purposes and having fun at a shooting range. I'll admit, I don't know a whole lot about the types of guns, specifically. I don't know if you're the person to ask, but any recommendations?
Really?
Then explain to me why the 1A and 2A amendments cannot be understood the same by everybody?
Their wording is quite simple and short.
I just stated my intended use. Self-defense and fun at a shooting range....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?