This gun thing is rather off-topic as you guys noted, so I will address it, however I do not intend to make my whole post just about it.
I wasn't aware that "a well regulated militia" meant "GUNS FOR EVERYONE!!! LOL!!"
See, the bill of rights does say that people have the right to have guns, as part of a "well regulated militia." The people in the NRA who are clamoring for gun rights aren't part of this militia. In fact, none of the private gun owners who are constantly fighting for their rights to own a gun are part of any United States militia, mostly because there isn't really any militia anymore, or at least not the way it's meant in the Bill of Rights?
Except that the amendment doesn't guarantee a well-regulated militia, it recognizes the need for it, and guarantees the right for the people to bear arms, the militia is a natural outgrowth of said right.
And while there may not really be militias now, we are moving into forth generation warfare which is based heavily on irregulars, of which militia are a prime example. Assuming that the theory is correct (and the effectiveness of guerillia warfare, shown simply by the use of the term asymmetrical warfare (in other words, it takes far more resources to fight then the warfare requires) seems to indicate it very strongly), then we should see a re-emergence of militias as proxies for states on the local level.
So what does this mean, practically? It means that the Supreme Court can (and has) interpreted the second amendment to their liking, and the rest of us have just got to deal with it. Personally, I'm fine with their interpretation, so it doesn't bother me.
Ah yes, difference between power and authority. They have the authority to interpret the law and are only supposed to rule as the law says, but they often have the power to make the law mean anything they wish.
I see little reason however, to take such a nonchalant attitude in regards to the law. I think this means that it's just time to reassert textualism. Because really, if the law means only what the judge says it means, then the law is only what the judge says, there is no law in that case.
However, I ought to say that anybody who actually thinks the second amendment actually means that anybody and everybody is allowed to own a gun is just warping it to fit their own views. It never says anything like that.
Yes it does, read it.
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.
Look, the first clause (the dependant clause), says "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state", does that require the existance of said well-regulate militia? No, it just says that a well-regulated militia is nessessary to the security of a free state.
The second clause (the independant clause) says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", in other words, the people have the right to bear arms.
That said, it's not quite everybody, the constitution allows for removal of rights for conviction of a crime, and case law has established that those mentally incapable of exercising certain rights, do not maintain them.
In addition to that, there are other reasonable restrictions that do not abridge the right to bear arms. 3 day waiting period does not abridge your right for instance, nor does a full background check.
Are you kidding? I'm pretty sure the majority of kids in school don't give a **** about the official religion of their school is.
They just want to live their lives, and not worry about that crap except maybe on Sundays.
It doesn't really matter whether they care anyway. As long as we have the first amendment to the Constitution then it's patently illegal anyway.
Sure, they can amend the constitution, but I doubt the support exists (because while the majority may be Christians, that doesn't mean that enough of said Christians disagree with seperation of church and state to make it happen).
I'm really not sure about the legality of vouchers, but a while ago I started thinking that they might be a lot more practical than our current school system.
So, yeah, this is pretty much the one issue I think George Bush might have been right on, although I'm not sure he was doing it for the right reasons. Never expect to hear me say that again.
Ah yes, that.
It's legal as long as the parents get the vouchers and then get the school. As long as it goes through a second party it's not government support of religion, because it's viewpoint neutral.
Well, that's interesting, but Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Second Amendment.
Yes, but Madison did at Jefferson's urging.
Yes, Thomas Jefferson was in favor of a law that allowed people to own guns, militia or no militia. However, Thomas Jefferson's version of the law is not the one that was passed, so it really has no legal impact.
Actually, it was, his suggestion for the bill of rights essentially became the bill of rights, even though Madison was the actual author.
I absolutely agree that you have the right to own a gun for self defense. I disagree that this right is granted in the original understanding of the Second Amendment.
Then read it again, it's an independent clause, the whole bit about militias is just the reason why it's necessary that the people have a right to bear arms.
If we're going by tax payers money, the majority of tax payers in this nation are supposedly christian, so wouldn't we be assuming the opposite because tax payers are not getting what they want. Face it, the majority of kids who attend public schools who are christian, , when given the chance would attend a christian school. It's always been about the money. But of course, no one wants to do vouchers, because tthat would "Go against the constituition"
How do you know the tax-payers are not getting what they want?
Obviously the majority are Christian, but what makes you assume that all, or even the majority of Christians think like you?
While the majority might've preferred religious schooling, it's doubtful that even the majority of Christians would be willing to accept religion in public schools. There is a large number of Christians in the United States that are very supportive of the concept of separation of Church and State.
That means that they're getting exactly what they asked for, secular public schools, I know it's what I asked for as a voting-age devout Christian who supports Separation of Church and State.
Of course, you could attempt to prove me wrong. Please, try to amend the Constitution so as to remove the establishment and free exercise clauses of the first Amendment. I guarantee that you'll have the support of maybe 40% of the population if you're really lucky. If you're successful you can have religious education in public schools.
so today in a mock trial(that I OWNED(75/65 points)) in American Studies, we swore the oath on a real bible. Of course we ask if anyone would take offense first. Some might argue that this is wrong, but do people not swear on a bible in court of law?
There's been some question on this, but as I remember, you can also swear on the Koran, or other document of import to you. See, the oath on the Bible is supposed to place the fear of God in you so you will not violate the oath.
It doesn't really make sense if you do not swear on a document that bears no importance to you, such as a muslim swearing on the Bible.
the constitution is awkward, yeah, it's old. But the debate is about whether or not religion SHOULD be in school, regardless of current laws
Whether it is or is not legal is a rather important tangent to the issue.
Irreguardless, "should not", at least not in public schools.
The government has no business interfering in religion, and breaches in the separation of Church and state exert a corrupting influence on both. When the Church becomes a politically powerful organization, people are attracted to it because of it's power. Then such individuals take advantage of the Church's position as "unquestionable" to place arbitrary demands on the people.
A wonderful example of this is the Catholic Church's Borgia family, look them up. That one family will show exactly why the separation between Church and State must be viciously guarded. What's even worse is that they really weren't exceptional. Furthermore, among certain politically powerful religious figures, generally polarizing Evangelicals, I see the same trend.
No, religion should not be taught in school, nor should the government be giving money specifically to religious charities (viewpoint neutrality is fine however), nor should there be any laws which reference to religion, for the integrity of both, Seperation of Church and State must be protected.
