NationStates Jolt Archive

So I was talking to a pretty liberal friend of mine today, and in our conversation, he says:

"The Bill of Rights is shit!"

So, what do you all make of this?

Hmmm, The Bill of Rights is teh shit would have been better.

the bill of rights smells like poo... i mean its so old, how can it not?

Your friend is an idiot. His idiotic ramblings are protected by the bill of rights. Ironic, ain't it?

Your friend is an idiot.

Any political leanings he may have is not relevantto that statement....there are idiots in all directions of the compass.

So I was talking to a pretty liberal friend of mine today, and in our conversation, he says:

"The Bill of Rights is shit!"

So, what do you all make of this?
Is he a liberal or perhaps communist? The way I see things, a communist would not like the bill of rights because it protects property rights as well as personal rights. Like in the fifth amendment where it says property cannot be siezed unless it is for a public need and the owner is propperly compensated.

What's so bad about the bill of rights? Except for number 2 (the rights to bear arms) it's not so bad? Let them be.

Your friend is an idiot.

Any political leanings he may have is not relevantto that statement....there are idiots in all directions of the compass.
Agreed.

Also, nice name, Zeppistan.

What's so bad about the bill of rights? Except for number 2 (the rights to bear arms) it's not so bad? Let them be.

Number 2 is misinterpreted. When it is seen as giving the states the right to their own armed force (National Guard) it is actually a useful amendment.

Birds of a feather flock together. 8)

Is he a liberal or perhaps communist? The way I see things, a communist would not like the bill of rights because it protects property rights as well as personal rights. Like in the fifth amendment where it says property cannot be siezed unless it is for a public need and the owner is propperly compensated.

Surely in a communist government property would be seized for perceived public need?

So I was talking to a pretty liberal friend of mine today, and in our conversation, he says:

"The Bill of Rights is shit!"

So, what do you all make of this?
What do you make of it Super-power?

but at the same time it is not the greatest document.

Its preaches freedom without responsibility.

While I can see how the lack of responsibility ensures that no political group can enforce entirely how the freedoms are to be interpreted, the problem of potential anarchy remains. Thus the question becomes, how do you teach responsibility without preaching governmental or religious politics to ensure a better standard for all those the document means to serve?

Surely in a communist government property would be seized for perceived public need?
Yeah, I was just saying a communist probably wouldn't like the bill of rights because it protects private property. If there was a communist government elected into power, it would have some constitutional obstacles to overcome, assuming it was going to abide by the constitution. I was speculating that if he was a communist rather than a liberal that might be why he dissapproved of it.

What do you make of it Super-power?
I fully support the Bill of Rights - so my friend must have been really mad today . . .

There seems to be no real relevance between your friends comment and him being a liberal. Most liberals and conservatives I know hold the bill of rights in high regard.

React to this-
I was talking to a conservative friend of mine the other day and he said:
"I really like to have large cylindrical objects shoved up my butt and down my throat!"

Number 2 is misinterpreted. When it is seen as giving the states the right to their own armed force (National Guard) it is actually a useful amendment.
That, for example, is one misinterpretation.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

There seems to be no real relevance between your friends comment and him being a liberal. Most liberals and conservatives I know hold the bill of rights in high regard.

React to this-
I was talking to a conservative friend of mine the other day and he said:
"I really like to have large cylindrical objects shoved up my butt and down my throat!"

It may be a question of the context from which the statement was taken.

Liberals tends to oppose the part of the Bill of Rights that deal with firearms (Semi-automatic weapons).
Conservatives tend to oppose the part of the Bill Of Rights that deal with free speech (flag burning).

It may be a question of the context from which the statement was taken.

Liberals tends to oppose the part of the Bill of Rights that deal with firearms (Semi-automatic weapons).
Conservatives tend to oppose the part of the Bill Of Rights that deal with free speech (flag burning).


That is very true. However, he does not point that out in any way. He makes it sound as if liberals in general hate the bill of rights. In general, no one I know dislikes the bill of rights as a whole.

That, for example, is one misinterpretation.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

So private ownership provides for a "well regulated militia?"

So I was talking to a pretty liberal friend of mine today, and in our conversation, he says:

"The Bill of Rights is shit!"

So, what do you all make of this?

I don't suppose there was any kind of context for that statement? Or did he just blurt it out for no reason?

So I was talking to a pretty liberal friend of mine today, and in our conversation, he says:

"The Bill of Rights is shit!"

So, what do you all make of this?

Tourette's Syndrome.

So private ownership provides for a "well regulated militia?"
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_311.html
So it would seem that way.

Edit : Actually, that just declares that private (male) owners of guns would be considered militia, not necessarily "well-regulated", but that phrase can be interpreted many ways...

So private ownership provides for a "well regulated militia?"
Stop passing on false propaganda. You're as bad as the creationists who use 50 year-old evidence to "debunk" evolution.

Read the document. Do you honestly believe that you have more legal and historical knowledge than a committee appointed by the US Department of Justice? Give me a break.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_311.html
So it would seem that way.

Edit : Actually, that just declares that private (male) owners of guns would be considered militia, not necessarily "well-regulated", but that phrase can be interpreted many ways...

Well, alright, you win.

Stop passing on false propaganda. You're as bad as the creationists who use 50 year-old evidence to "debunk" evolution.

Read the document. Do you honestly believe that you have more legal and historical knowledge than a committee appointed by the US Department of Justice? Give me a break.

I'm not reading all of that.

I'm not reading all of that.
That doesn't mean you're not responsible for its contents.

A feature of the Second Amendment that distinguishes it from the other rights that the Bill of Rights secures is its prefatory subordinate clause, declaring: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ." Advocates of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right interpretations rely on this declaration, particularly its reference to a well-regulated militia. On their interpretation, the "people" to which the Second Amendment refers is only the "people" in a collective, organized capacity as the state governments, or a small subset of the "people" actively organized by those governments into military bodies. "People" becomes interchangeable with the "State" or its "organized militia."

This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it.

Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms.
..., followed by some rather lengthy explanations of each of these claims.

So I was talking to a pretty liberal friend of mine today, and in our conversation, he says:

"The Bill of Rights is shit!"

So, what do you all make of this?

Your friend could have meant many things and still be considered perfectly liberal.

1. Many liberals argue that the Bill of Rights was poorly written. For instance, they feel that the First Amendment was (or should have been) meant to protect the EQUAL right to free speech. These liberals are among those who complain about massive campaign contributions by wealthy individuals or corporations, or who are dissatisfied with the corporate control of mass media or the treatment of political protest.

From time to time, the Supreme Court agrees. For an excellent discussion of how the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment fluctuates over time, see:

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market: The Supreme Court and Political Speech in the Electoral Process," by Brian K. Pinaire, in The Journal of Law & Politics, Summer 2001.

2. Recall that liberalism is a political predisposition that can occur in the context of virtually any political system. For some liberals, their belief in strong democratic principles is stronger than their belief in liberal ideology. Thus, such people critique the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections on the grounds that too many of them do not relate directly to the protection of democracy. These people believe that the only justification for a constitutional "right" is that it is necessary to the functioning of democracy. Thus freedom of speech is of fundamental interest, but they are less interested in the Second Amendment (unless you can convince them that it promotes democracy). They think that besides these fundamental political liberties, the majority should rule.

(Actually, they even have some decent arguments that this system better protects the interests of minorities... It goes something like this: "Under existing constitutional 'protections,' there is little evidence that minorities actually get any protection unless they can get the majority on their side. That is, minority social struggles only succeed when they become mass movements and change public opinion. But the existing legal nature of rights has diverted their resources into legal battles that have little impact on substantive policy. Moreover, entire issues are deprived of their political character." This is not all they have to say, but it is the basic argument.)

It may be a question of the context from which the statement was taken.

Liberals tends to oppose the part of the Bill of Rights that deal with firearms (Semi-automatic weapons).
Conservatives tend to oppose the part of the Bill Of Rights that deal with free speech (flag burning).
And virtually everybody ignores 10th Ammendment.

That doesn't mean you're not responsible for its contents.


..., followed by some rather lengthy explanations of each of these claims.

While I don't disagree with those points, those are still far from conclusive points.

Edit: and since I cannot debate this on a factual level, I will use a fallacy and say that I don't trust anything that comes from Ashcroft's office.

Stop passing on false propaganda. You're as bad as the creationists who use 50 year-old evidence to "debunk" evolution.

Read the document. Do you honestly believe that you have more legal and historical knowledge than a committee appointed by the US Department of Justice? Give me a break.While I agree that VO is full of shit regarding 2A and RKBA, I think it's a really bad idea to an "appeal to authority" to make your case. What the DOJ says about the Second Amenmdment proves nothing. You've painted yourself into a corner here. If the DOJ changes it's opinion on the matter tomorrow, you'll be expected to go along.

While I agree that VO is full of shit regarding 2A and RKBA, I think it's a really bad idea to an "appeal to authority" to make your case. What the DOJ says about the Second Amenmdment proves nothing. You've painted yourself into a corner here. If the DOJ changes it's opinion on the matter tomorrow, you'll be expected to go along.

I actually think that people should have the right to own firearms. Like everything, a lack of responsibility is the problem, not the item used.

I just don't think that a person's right to own weapons for sport or defense from other people is provided for by the second amendment.

While I agree that VO is full of shit regarding 2A and RKBA, I think it's a really bad idea to an "appeal to authority" to make your case. What the DOJ says about the Second Amenmdment proves nothing. You've painted yourself into a corner here. If the DOJ changes it's opinion on the matter tomorrow, you'll be expected to go along.
Yes, this is true. If the people who know what they're talking about suddenly turn out to be evil, then we're in a lot of trouble. My argument should be the least of our worries. Maybe we should dissolve the DOJ.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that I won't appeal to authority when people stop appealing to a piece of paper for moral judgments.

Yes, this is true. If the people who know what they're talking about suddenly turn out to be evil, then we're in a lot of trouble. My argument should be the least of our worries. Maybe we should dissolve the DOJ.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that I won't appeal to authority when people stop appealing to a piece of paper for moral judgments.

I never once appealed to the Bill of Rights for a moral judgement. I feel that the bill of rights has absolutely nothing to do with the morals of the individual, other than allowing one to preserve his or her own.

What I was referring to was the fact that I don't interpret the 2nd amendment to actually provide legally for the personal use of firearms.

Stop passing on false propaganda. You're as bad as the creationists who use 50 year-old evidence to "debunk" evolution.

Read the document. Do you honestly believe that you have more legal and historical knowledge than a committee appointed by the US Department of Justice? Give me a break.

I wouldn't show undue faith in any committee appointed by John "let the eagle soar," "too embarrassed to stand in front of a statue of justice," Ashcroft, whatever his knowledge is.

Your friend could have meant many things and still be considered perfectly liberal.

1. Many liberals argue that the Bill of Rights was poorly written.

A 200 year old document can only be so well written. Language changes over time. For example, Congress was given the power to "regulate" interstate commerce. At the time it was written the word regulate only meant "to make regular" i.e. provide a uniform system of trade for importation and exportation between the states. Now it means "to control" and is interpreted to give Congress carte blanche to make up any law it wants provided it can claim that such a law has something, anything, to do with commerce and keep a straight face.

Like how Antonin Scalia said that Congress has the power to outlaw marijuana because if you grow your own in your own back yard then you aren't importing it from another state, which is unfair to the marijuana trade of the neighbooring states.

Now if you think he actually believes that load of crap and is just a retart, not a bald faced liar, just remember that he's the same guy that said that just because something is made in one state to be sold in another that does not, in itself, make it interstate trade. WTF!!! Trade between states is not interstate trade, but plants grown without being traded to anyone for anything is insterstate trade?!

I say "yum, this candy is good!"

A 200 year old document can only be so well written. Language changes over time.

Sure, but that is not the complaint I was explaining. Many people think the word "equal" should have been in the First Amendment. It is not a problem of changing meaning, but one of omission.