A glimpse into the Social Engineering of Intent

[FLrider]

Intent manifests itself in many ways. What really is the intent? Less Violence or More Control?

 

This is fundamentally a social issue not a political one in my opinion so, I hope to have not crossed the "no politics" rule...

 

Mr. Virtual President; Please take the podium.

 

[Quinn]

He makes some very valid points.

 

I wonder how each side of the issue would re-write the Second Ammendment to protect their interpretation of it. Especially when both sides think that it already matches their and only their interpretation.

 

------

 

 

[Antimatter]

There are two serious flaws with the logic of the presentation. First, the idea that disarming a population increases the number of predators is a nice bit of rhetoric, but it's not proven by biological science.

 

The 2nd is the argument about passing laws that 'violate' the Constitution. Many folks who argue an absolutist position on the constitution forget that there are two parts; the Bill of Rights AND the Articles, which establish the rules by which the validity of laws can be challenged, AND the procedure for adding or changing amendments to the Bill of Rights. To argue that laws interpreting the scope of the Bill of Rights is a violation of someone's oath of office is specious and shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution itself.

 

I like this answer to the question much better:

 

What Liberals Need To Understand About Gun Guys.

[russell_bynum]

Antimatter: the problem with your 2nd point is that the method established in the constitution for determining the constitutionality of laws passed by the federal govt is a review by the federal govt (SCOTUS.)

 

The Feds are essentially self-policing, which is an obvious conflict of interest.

[philbytx]

Good article. I look forward to reading his book.

 

Ok. So nature shows that predators always move into an area where game is plentiful/easy to catch. Sounds familiar?

 

 

 

 

[Antimatter]

That's how the rules are laid out. You can't argue the constitutionality of something without referring to the rules of the document itself. I would argue that the Constitution isn't a religious document, but even those get re-interpreted by those in charge.

[FLrider]

I can't speak to the biological science in animals but I do know that there are stats by the FBI that disprove that behavior in people. I'll try and dig it up.

 

Finally, any amendments, borne out of governments desire to change the fundamental spirit of the BIll of Rights, is a violation, in my opinion, of their oath to protect the constitution.

[FLrider]

 

[Antimatter]

FL Rider: Out of curiosity, do you feel the Constitution has a divine origin? I ask because I've encountered a number of folks who feel the US Constitution is a document given to the founding fathers by God (big 'G'), and shouldn't be revised or changed.

 

I have no wish to argue the point, rather I'm trying to understand the viewpoints other than my own.

[Dave McReynolds]

Was looking at the chart posted by FLrider, and wonder how 31,758 people manage to unintentionally poison themselves? I've never personally known anyone who has unintentionally poisoned themselves (if you exclude drug, alcohol and tobacco poisoning, which appear to be other categories), and am curious about those who do.

 

Also, where does disease enter into the stats? Does this chart mean that fewer than 11,493 people die each year from diseases where there are no reported medical errors?

[TyTass]

That's how the rules are laid out. You can't argue the constitutionality of something without referring to the rules of the document itself. I would argue that the Constitution isn't a religious document, but even those get re-interpreted by those in charge.

FL Rider: Out of curiosity, do you feel the Constitution has a divine origin? I ask because I've encountered a number of folks who feel the US Constitution is a document given to the founding fathers by God (big 'G'), and shouldn't be revised or changed.

 

I have no wish to argue the point, rather I'm trying to understand the viewpoints other than my own.

 

Casual observation ... It sounds as though you are setting up either a Strawman and a Red Herring argument or both here. Not saying you definitely are, but you being the one that brought the question of religious beliefs twice now you not only give the impression that you wish to argue that point, but that you don't wish to argue any other.

 

If that is not your intent, could you please explain more clearly your point? Thanks.

[DiggerJim]

Was looking at the chart posted by FLrider, and wonder how 31,758 people manage to unintentionally poison themselves? I've never personally known anyone who has unintentionally poisoned themselves (if you exclude drug, alcohol and tobacco poisoning, which appear to be other categories), and am curious about those who do.

Personally I'm always astonished that 30 people a year die of drowning in a bucket. I mean, can't you just stand up and correct the problem even if you can't get the bucket off your head? Or the 3 or 4 people a year who die from shaking a vending machine until it falls on them...

 

Also, where does disease enter into the stats? Does this chart mean that fewer than 11,493 people die each year from diseases where there are no reported medical errors?

The chart is Ten Big Causes not Top Ten Causes...Cancer for instance kills almost 575,000 people (who are likely to be some large subset of the 529,000 listed in the graph for tobacco), Heart disease is #1 at just shy of 600,000...diabetes is worth nearly 70,000 and the flu & pneumonia is worth an additional 50,000. Most of the big killers in fact are largely preventable through lifestyle changes but that's harder than banning 10 round magazines and feeling like you've accomplished something. People (and politicians) don't have the attention span or self-discipline necessary to make fundamental change for the better.

 

[Antimatter]

That's how the rules are laid out. You can't argue the constitutionality of something without referring to the rules of the document itself. I would argue that the Constitution isn't a religious document, but even those get re-interpreted by those in charge.

FL Rider: Out of curiosity, do you feel the Constitution has a divine origin? I ask because I've encountered a number of folks who feel the US Constitution is a document given to the founding fathers by God (big 'G'), and shouldn't be revised or changed.

 

I have no wish to argue the point, rather I'm trying to understand the viewpoints other than my own.

 

Casual observation ... It sounds as though you are setting up either a Strawman and a Red Herring argument or both here. Not saying you definitely are, but you being the one that brought the question of religious beliefs twice now you not only give the impression that you wish to argue that point, but that you don't wish to argue any other.

 

If that is not your intent, could you please explain more clearly your point? Thanks.

 

Nope, I realize the foolishness of trying to argue that point.

 

What I want to find out is if there are two sets of beliefs on the more stable view of the Constitution. As I said before, I've met several folks who believe the Constitution is a divinely inspired document, and to challenge or change it's writings is to challenge the wisdom of a spiritual being they hold in esteem. I wanted to understand if there were two camps of thought on that, of if the majority of the fixed meaning folks felt a spiritual obligation to the Constitution.

 

If that makes anyone uncomfortable, I humbly withdraw the question. If someone local to me (Maple Grove, MN) wants to discuss it over a beer when there are no recording devices or media saved for posterity, I would welcome that opportunity.

[tallman]

Never met anyone who thought that about the US Constitution nor was

it ever mentioned in Con law in law school.

 

Maybe I missed that class.

[FLrider]

FL Rider: Out of curiosity, do you feel the Constitution has a divine origin? I ask because I've encountered a number of folks who feel the US Constitution is a document given to the founding fathers by God (big 'G'), and shouldn't be revised or changed.

 

I have no wish to argue the point, rather I'm trying to understand the viewpoints other than my own.

 

No, I don't think our Constitution was handed to them as were the 10 commandments to Moses , however, the founding fathers were a spiritual lot and I'm sure that their prayers for wisdom and clarity....were answered.

[FLrider]

Was looking at the chart posted by FLrider, and wonder how 31,758 people manage to unintentionally poison themselves? I've never personally known anyone who has unintentionally poisoned themselves (if you exclude drug, alcohol and tobacco poisoning, which appear to be other categories), and am curious about those who do.

 

 

I know. I noticed that too. Let me go back and see if I can find the definition of unintentional poisoning...

 

The only thing I can think of is fumes from home heaters, propane, kerosene, poor ventilation in automobiles, etc., weird indeed....

[DiggerJim]

I know. I noticed that too. Let me go back and see if I can find the definition of unintentional poisoning...

Primary cause (90%) of unintentional poisonings are drug overdoses. Most for recreational drugs where the recreational component was the goal but the dosage a bit too high. Others were accidental overdoses mostly in children who had access to drugs they took for neither recreational nor therapeutic purposes. The rest are again usually children drinking or eating things they ought not like cigarette stubs (nicotine poisoning), household chemicals, etc. or adults mixing chemicals like bleach & ammonia (don't they teach people anything in school anymore?).

 

Used to be the second most common call I'd get on the ambulance - car accidents being the primary ones.

[Quinn]

To me, the Constitution is the foundation of our country. Don't believe that it came from God or was even Divinely inspired. It even has in place a method of evolving by allowing amendments if there are desired changes. But until it gets amended, it should be treated as the law of the land and not a series of suggestion to be ignored by an ever-growing and intrusive government.

 

I wonder sometimes how my period of history will be treated by historians in the future. Will we be a parallel of decandent Rome, sending foreign aid to countries to keep them from attacking us and pandering to the mobs with bread and circuses to keep an upper class in power? Or will TSA be morphed into Nazi stormtroopers herding the sheeplike population so they can be fleeced more easily?

 

-------

 

 

[TyTass]

Antimatter,

 

OK, now I see where you're coming from.

 

You don't wish to debate the question in specific religious terms (fine by me), yet you're trying to figure out whether the majority of those who favor reading the Constitution as originally written/intended do so because they are following religious doctrine or because they are merely used to following religious doctrine. Why presume a religious motivation while ignore the subtext, which is the debate between Originalism vs. Textualism?

 

There's a lot written on these subjects. Greg Haverkamp clued me into this like 5 years ago and wow! I've found one could devote a lifetime to this subject alone. You can presume a religious motivation must exist on one side and not the other, but I have no idea how accurate that would be or beneficial to your understanding of the Originalist POV.

 

Although a devout agnostic - pun intended - I fall into the Originalist camp (though neither a lawyer, a historian, nor a philosopher). Being an avid reader of western history, I know well that the meaning of words change. Certainly, understanding what one said long ago necessitates study and research because we can no longer simply ask the person what they meant.

 

However, I don't think it an improvement in any way to divorce one's need to understand the intent of words written long ago any more than I think I should divorce myself from understanding the intent of words anyone written 20 minutes ago.

 

What then is the point of documenting anything if not for later understanding and the passing on of information, laws, philosophy, etc.?

[Antimatter]

TyTass:

 

Thanks, you've gotten close to the question I was asking. And I find your views interesting as well.

 

I need to do more research on this, once I tackle calculus, relearn Spanish, and help my wife refurbish our guest bathroom.

 

So many projects, so little time...

[TyTass]

That's how I felt 5 years ago when Greg enlightened/challenged me (darn him! ) with these concepts.

 

Suffice it to say I'll never be a lawyer. So, I'll stick to being a Quality Manager for technical data systems/publications ... hence, the strong belief that intent is at least 33.3% of written communication, word choice is another 33.3%, word meaning 33.3%, and poor comprehension is the last 33%. Yeah ... I know it doesn't add up.

[RavennaAl]

When it comes to guns, it's very difficult to have a rational discussion because those that are most vocal about it, lack the capability of discerning the difference between banning guns and regulating them. To those people, they are the same even though they clearly are not. Regulating guns is not against the constitution. Banning them is. The 2nd amendment is one sentence "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." We can look at this a few words at a time.

 

First is "A well regulated Militia" OK, how do you interpret this?

What is a militia? The dictionary describes it as :

1.)

a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2.)

a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3.)

all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4.)

a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

 

So, what did the founding fathers have in mind when they wrote this? To me, I believe they wrote this because America did not have a standing Army, Navy or Marines, and definately had no Air Force to defend itself against an enemy. It relied on it's citizens, as it did in the Revolutionary war. When the war began, the 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy. Each colony sponsored local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Therefore, to me, when the constitution said a well regulated militia, it was refering to it's citizens, which were it's army.

 

"being necessary to the security of a free State" OK, here is where there are polarizing viewpoints as to what they meant. Were they refering to being able to defend the US against foreign governments, who may try and take parts of the country for themselves? Were they afraid that some other country might try and take over the US, forcing their government rule on the colonists? Or, were they trying to make sure that the citizens could defend themselves against a corrupt government that may try and disolve the constitution? Remember, the constitution was written as a new form of government. So, would the founding fathers be afraid that their new government, that had yet to take affect, would become bad, to where the citizens would need to defend themselves against it, or were they more concerned with other countries, such as Great Britton, Spain, or France coming over and trying to take it over? Which was the greater threat at that time?

 

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Ok, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be interfered with, but what does that really mean? You have the right to arms, but what kind of arms? Does it mean that you have the right to own any kind of weapon that you wish? Let's consider the possibilities. There are pistols and regular rifles. Ok, what else? How about semi-automatic weapons? Or fully automatic weapons. There has been a ban on machine guns since 1986, why don't any gun advocates protest that? How about missles? Should a citizen be allowed to have missles? Or Bazookas? How about hand grenades? Laser guns? Chemicle weapons? Shouldn't people be allowed to own a weapon that can kill hundreds with a gas that spreads over several city blocks? What about bilogical weapons? Shouldn't we be allowed to own germ weapons that could take out 1/2 a city? And what about nuclear bombs? If the constitution says that you can own any weapon that you wish, then why can't everyone have a nuke?

 

Ok, by now you think that I'm just being silly. Of course people shouldn't be allowed to own nukes, but really, where do you draw the line? Where do you interpret the constitution to say what kind of weapons you can own? Are there any limitations, or is a free for all? If you say there are no lines to be made, then you open it up for people to own anything. If you say that there is a line, where is it? Is it with fully sutomatic weapons? Or semi-automatic weapons? Do you say that any kind of pistol or rifle is ok, but military weapons are out of the queastion? If so, then where do you get that from, because it certainly isn't in that one sentence that is the 2nd amendment.

 

The thing is, as long as man has been around, he has found a way to kill his brothers. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon he has, he will kill others. It's just the way it is. Unfortunately, there are always a few that will ruin things for others. It only takes a few nutjobs to go on a killing spree before everyone starts saying that we need to do something. And that's what this is. The government is trying to do something . They want to try and limit the amount of carnage that one person can do. That's why they banned machine guns, though I'm surprised that they didn't do it back in the 40's or 30's when gangsters were shooting up the place. Limiting the number of bullets in a gun, or saying semi-automatic weapons are out doesn't keep you from being able to buy other guns, it certainly hasn't kept anyone from buying guns since 1986 when the machine gun ban was in place. It didn't stop anyone from buying guns in 1994 when the first ban on semi-automatic weapons was in place. And it won't stop you from being able to buy guns if they do it again.

 

Now, as for background checks, here is where the 2nd amendment could be considered to be under attack. If we have a constitutional right to bear arms, then isn't it for everyone? Or does it exclude people with criminal backgrounds or mental issues? Who is guarenteed rights, everyone or just some people? I think most people would agree that criminals and mentally unballanced people should never be allowed to own guns. But does the constitution have that exclusion? If not, then should it? Maybe what we need is to re-write the 2nd amendment to something that would reflect modern day ideology and terms.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but I do agree that there needs to be a definate definition as to what we should and should not be allowed to own. We need to update the conmstituion into modern terms and get rid of some of the vagueness in the amendments that were written with no guidlines. I don't know why we have to continue with something that was written over 200 years ago. So much has changed since then. We can keep the basic principals of the constitution, but update it with clear and distict definitions and limits so that it can' be interpreted (or misinterpreted) in so many different ways. That's just my 2 cents worth.

[Roadwolf]

Wow... this is getting reposted (with your permission of course).... about the best breakdown of the Second Amendment I have read. Kudos.

[TyTass]

Overall, a well-presented opinion, except where you begin by villainizing whom you see as the opposition. Though that may be your personal experience, even "your opposition" could inflame the subject similarly by bring up their trails and tribulations with "anti-gun fantics" who openly wish to ban all weapons, despite you saying that's not the subject as you see it.

 

My point is that kind of postering is so unecessary and doesn't serve rational discussion whatsoever. Rational implies factual. Hmmm ... so, how about some fact checks here:

 

- This from an LA Times article: "The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment in 1986 have all placed limits on how automatic guns can be bought and sold, but did not make it illegal to possess them entirely."

 

One can own fully automatic weapons. They simply are regulated, not banned. Of course, one is not supposed to be able to own one should they have a criminal background or a history of mental illness (a subject completely dropped since Sandy Hook).

 

- The Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 "banned" certain semi-automatic weapons that possessed cosmetic features of an "assault rifle". That list (a flowchart actually) identified numerous features such as:

 

For semi-automatic rifle:

- folding/telescoping stock

- pistol grip

- bayonet mount

- flash supressor

- grenade launcher

 

For semi-automatic pistols:

- Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

- threaded barrel to attach barrel extender

- flash suppressor

- handgrip

- suppressor

- Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold

 

Anyway, suffice it to say ... the list goes on. The point here is that we attempted to ban these cosmetic features and what happened? Manufacturers modified some of those those features in such a way as to not be illegal, but still appearing the same and/or still providing similar characteristics/functionality.

 

But nbeside all that, the issue of such cosmetics doesn't cause the carnage you say they wish to stop. Any semi-automatic weapon can cause that same carnage. Heck ... a regular 3-round pump shotgun and a bandolier of shotgu shells could easily rival the worst mass shootings. It all comes down to how fast a person can reload.

 

So why the ban (not merely regulation) on scary-looking guns? As you point out, lots of weapons can kill. So what's the point of banning just a few? If I'm crazy and want to kill and mame large numbers of people all I need is a hefty 4x4 and a crowded street sidewalk downtown ... or if really, really disturbed that same 4x4 and a crowded playground! So why the ban? Why allow me to own a fully automatic weapon (with tax stamp) and not a gun with a magazine?

 

The questions keep mounting (and I've only scratched the surface), so those who own and/or favor gun ownership are left wondering what's the point? They try to make sense out of the nonsense and are left to conclude all sort of things ... and intents.

 

You're right, those we send to represent us in the government are trying to do "something." But what?

 

If we/they were truly serious about "reducing the carnage" we'd be having serious discussion about our concepts of diagnosis, treatments, classification, monitoring, and the fundamental rights of freedom for the mentally ill. However, that is indeed not on the subject of gun control/regulation ... but it is no red herring if the discussion is one of "reducing the carnage."

 

(Kind of just blurted this out ... so, please feel free to call me on any incorrect facts I may have thrown out there.)

[SuperG]

Very interesting conversation.

But several issues need to be addressed.

 

1) you can't "look at this a few words at a time"(2nd amendment).

because as you said, it is somewhat vague, and it all comes down to interpretation of those words by the individual. And have interpreted words and phrases from the 18. century kind of future shocked it with current 21. century interpretation.

Such as "people to keep and bear arms". To me it is clear they meant small arms, because at that time arms of mass destruction was not yet available.

 

2) re-amending the amendments? all of it, right? since they were all vaguely written back then. That would bring a whole new can of worms to the table.

 

3) who would be doing the rewriting to bring us up to the 21. century technology and social issues?

This is a problem by it self.

Those of whom that we elected to represent us may not be experts at all and everything that would be necessary to bring the constitution up to date.

Take for example the gun regulation and ban we are currently battling with. Our elected representatives are somewhat clueless about firearms (which may be understandable, they can't be experts at everything.) However they will be the one writing the bills that can become law.

Take for example our own V.P. Mr. Biden and his comment to the public about owning double barrel shotguns, that is all you need, you do not need a semi auto.

or simply tune to any TV channel where our elected officials claim that 30 round magazines are the culprit and if a 10 round clip(!) would be the limit, so many lives could have been saved at Sandyhook. They can not possible know that it only takes a few second to drop and swap an AR magazine.

[tallman]

pre20th century mass murders and genocide

 

man vs man

someone always loses

 

Weapons of mass destruction?

 

Time and place.

 

Greek fire?

yep

Roman phalanx?

yep

British infantry in 18th century w/coordinated rifle fire?

yep

Smallpox infected blankets?

yep

Maxim machine gun 19th century?

yep

etc

 

Our Founding Fathers were aware of global atrocities from the 17/18th centuries.

I posit they were influenced by more than just the War for Independence.

[FLrider]

I posit they were influenced by more than just the War for Independence.

 

[TyTass]

Agreed ... they read and studied history very closely (well many of them did, except Washington) ... and didn't rely on TV to provide them their understanding.

 

[DiggerJim]

or simply tune to any TV channel where our elected officials claim that 30 round magazines are the culprit and if a 10 round clip(!) would be the limit, so many lives could have been saved at Sandyhook. They can not possible know that it only takes a few second to drop and swap an AR magazine.

Or that the Sandy Hook shooter did not in fact fire 30 rounds from a magazine. Almost all of the magazines recovered at the scene still had rounds left. He was dropping and reloading in between classrooms (a behavior someone noted was familiar to any player of a first person shooter video game - never enter a new room without reloading). Suggestions that his behavior might have been influenced by the video games he played were immediately countered with an outcry that the first amendment rights of the game makers should not be trampled. Since there are more gamers than shooters, guess which amendment wins?

 

Anyone who served in Vietnam can show you how to take two 10 round magazines and tape them together for faster reloading.

 

Anyone who actually thinks about this would understand that even if it takes 10 seconds (which is a long time) to reload, it won't make a difference since everyone is unarmed in the locales favored by these nuts. Ergo, the politicians who vote for magazine bans are not thinking or don't care.

 

There should be a rule that all laws have to be measured to see if they achieve their intended effects and automatically repealed if they don't. Doesn't matter what it's for - if it doesn't work it shouldn't get grandfathered into the system. (There are already more than 20,000 gun laws in place...how likely is it that one of the "new", but same old ideas, ones will work?)

 

We passed a law in CT a few years ago banning handheld cell phone use. It was supposed to stop distracted driving. The day before the law was passed a national study was published showing no impact on accident rates between localities with such a law and those without. The sponsor of the bill acknowledged the study, also acknowledged that it was likely true, but then said that we needed to pass it anyway so people knew we were doing something about the problem. He didn't see the conflict - we weren't doing anything about the problem we were just doing something. That was his true goal - to be seen as doing something.

 

I expect most laws passed in the wake of public outcry are all about doing something passed by people who are uninformed about the probable outcome or unwilling to attack the real issue but want to be seen as doing something (although there are likely a number who pass them because they advance a personal agenda and the outcry is used as cover for that). Perception is everything in politics.

[Mike]

Personally, I'm not so sure that mucking about with the Bill of Rights is a good thing. First, the practical impediments are considerable. The most often used method has been that of obtaining a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, then sending the proposed amendment on to the states for approval by three-fourth's of the state.

 

But, more importantly, it's not as though the Bill of Rights was drawn up on a tavern napkin by a bunch of drunken louts. These were individuals who had seen incredible technological, social, and political upheaval during their lifetimes, and who certainly contemplated that the document they were drafting would forge the basis for a lasting nation.

 

I've always been skeptical of the notion that the Constitution was drafted by simple-minded folks who lacked the account for the possibility of social and technological changes. That viewpoint seems to represent a significant lack of understanding of the purpose of the Constitution and of the objectives of the Founding Fathers. As Tim notes above, the American Revolution and our founding documents arose during the post-Renaissance period, a time in history when the world had seen incredible upheaval and vast abuses of human rights.