...Shall Not Be Infringed

[ahhell]

No I appreciate the checks and balances afforded to us by Federalism. It is the duplication of resources and the abusive imbalance of power that concerns me. Of billions spent to persuade maybe 50,000 voters in Wyoming while ignoring millions of citizens in California and Texas.

It is how the Ethanol policy which at first was almost certainly done with good intentions has been kept after demonstrating it to be a disaster. It is environmentally unsound. It will be a future economic apocalypse if not changed. And politicians on both sides of the aisle ignore the problem because the corn states wield too much power. Power they wouldn't have if they didn't have a lot of US Senators created by the Great Compromise.

I tend to agree I just think adding representatives would address the problem adequately while also being a lot easier to achieve. Trying to reorganize the states just won't happen and if it did, a bunch would try seceding. Instead of combining small states could break up big states. It doesn't actually need an amendment, but it would be a good idea. Other things I'd do that should be uncontroversial. Require amendments to expiration dates. It's a bit silly that there's an amendment that could pass that's hanging out since 1791.

There really shouldn't be a lot of duplication of anything, but we've basically made federal crimes of just about everything.

 

[acbytesla]

I tend to agree I just think adding representatives would address the problem adequately while also being a lot easier to achieve. Trying to reorganize the states just won't happen and if it did, a bunch would try seceding. Instead of combining small states could break up big states. It doesn't actually need an amendment, but it would be a good idea. Other things I'd do that should be uncontroversial. Require amendments to expiration dates. It's a bit silly that there's an amendment that could pass that's hanging out since 1791.

There really shouldn't be a lot of duplication of anything, but we've basically made federal crimes of just about everything.

I'm not sure how to achieve a more representative government. The problem of course is the politics of it.

There are 50 to 100 State legislatures, 50+ State Executive branches, 50+ Departments of licensing, 50+ Departments of Transportations. 50+ State Police Departments and so on. We have duplication of government branches and departments from city, county, state and Federal agencies. There are duplication of jurisdictions and resources.

 

[ahhell]

I'm not sure how to achieve a more representative government. The problem of course is the politics of it.

There are 50 to 100 State legislatures, 50+ State Executive branches, 50+ Departments of licensing, 50+ Departments of Transportations. 50+ State Police Departments and so on. We have duplication of government branches and departments from city, county, state and Federal agencies. There are duplication of jurisdictions and resources.

I don't actually see how to avoid that. Its not like cities anywhere don't have their own governments that are subnational. A lot of that would be dealt with by letting particular governments handle the particular role they are meant to.

Of course, 50 state executive branches aren't duplicative. That's like saying the French parliament duplicates the english parliament. The Mayor of NY is redundant because there's a mayor of Albany.

And what folks don't realize, with rare exception, in the US the city and county governments exist because state governments find it convenient. They could all go away if the state governments decided to make that happen.

So, the alternative to federalism is the unitary state, France has that but it's not as though the French president runs Paris.

The Easy button to for a more representative government is more representatives and letting states do more.

 

[arthwollipot]

They were also invented for hunting.

They very much were not. The first handheld firearms were very loud and inaccurate, and would have been absolutely useless for hunting. Spears, bows and crossbows were used for hunting well into the gunpowder period.

The original guns of course were what we would describe as cannon, and they were invented in China.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't actually see how to avoid that. Its not like cities anywhere don't have their own governments that are subnational. A lot of that would be dealt with by letting particular governments handle the particular role they are meant to.

Of course, 50 state executive branches aren't duplicative. That's like saying the French parliament duplicates the english parliament. The Mayor of NY is redundant because there's a mayor of Albany.

And what folks don't realize, with rare exception, in the US the city and county governments exist because state governments find it convenient. They could all go away if the state governments decided to make that happen.

So, the alternative to federalism is the unitary state, France has that but it's not as though the French president runs Paris.

The Easy button to for a more representative government is more representatives and letting states do more.

I beg to differ. And agree. Of course there is unnecessary duplication of resources. There would still be county and city governments which are needed. This in itself is Federalism. I just think we could accomplish as much and still have checks against the National Government with say, 10 regional governments instead of 50 State governments. That wouldn't eliminate city and county governments.

And I don't see how the present State governments are offering much of a needed check when the State National Guards do what the President tells them what to do violating the Posse Comitatus Act.

 

[Hercules56]

No, a pool is not designed to drown someone, a gun is designed to kill or severely harm. For the two to be analogous you would need to have pools that are designed to kill or harm and outside of James Bond films I don't think such pools exist.

A gun is not designed to kill anyone. Its designed to shoot a bullet. The bullet, however, may be designed to cause more harm to a person or to simply be for targets. Or may be designed to stop an approaching attacker.

 

[acbytesla]

A gun is not designed to kill anyone. Its designed to shoot a bullet. The bullet, however, may be designed to cause more harm to a person or to simply be for targets. Or may be designed to stop an approaching attacker.

Oh please. An M1 Garand, an M16 and a 45 automatic were designed specifically to kill. These weapons and many others were designed for their killing power. The Garand was one of the great weapons of World War 2. It's ability to fire 8 bullets without reloading created an enormous advantage over the bolt action German Mauser.

 

[Hercules56]

Oh please. An M1 Garand, an M16 and a 45 automatic were designed specifically to kill. These weapons and many others were designed for their killing power. The Garand was one of the great weapons of World War 2. It's ability to fire 8 bullets without reloading created an enormous advantage over the bolt action German Mauser.

Those are weapons of war.

 

[acbytesla]

Those are weapons of war.

What's your point? The AR10 is almost identical to the M16. Many of the most popular firearms sold in gun stores and gun shows are copies of military weapons. Even my 30-0- 6 is a better version of WW1 rifle.

These are weapons designed to kill. Now maybe, the idea is to kill a deer or an elk. But nevertheless, the idea is to kill.

 

[Hercules56]

What's your point? The AR10 is almost identical to the M16. Many of the most popular firearms sold in gun stores and gun shows are copies of military weapons. Even my 30-0- 6 is a better version of WW1 rifle.

These are weapons designed to kill. Now maybe, the idea is to kill a deer or an elk. But nevertheless, the idea is to kill.

Kool.

 

[arthwollipot]

A gun is not designed to kill anyone. Its designed to shoot a bullet.

Nailed it:

And nobody give me the old "guns aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to propel small pieces of metal very fast". Shut up. Guns were invented as weapons of war. Period.

 

[arthwollipot]

Those are weapons of war.

Yes. Guns are weapons of war. That they can incidentally be used for other things as well is completely beside the point.

 

[Ranb]

What drives me crazy about this debate is the idea that the founders meant for us to be locked into this position. The guns of the American Revolution were smooth barrel muskets. Wildly inaccurate, taking a practiced soldier 20 seconds to load each bullet.

The weapons of the 1780's when the Constitution was written included muskets, rifles, breech loaded small arms, cannons, bombs and rockets. The founders were probably familiar with most of these.

 

[acbytesla]

The weapons of the 1780's when the Constitution was written included muskets, rifles, breech loaded small arms, cannons, bombs and rockets. The founders were probably familiar with most of these.

The most common weapon was the Brown Bess Musket, a smooth bore very inaccurate firearm. Yes, there we also long rifles that were much more accurate. But these were rare and took even longer to reload than the muskets.

The point is even if the founders intended that every American to be free to own a firearm which is debatable, there is no way they could foresee the killing ability of modern firearms.

 

[Brainster]

I have a question to the American posters here with regard to what the founders intended. Let's assume that they explicitly intended to be in the exact position that the US is in now.
Hell, let's assume further they wanted entirely unrestricted gun ownership, anyone who wants a vulcan chaingun can have one if they can afford it, no limits.

So we're in pretend land? What color are the clouds here?

Why should literally anyone in the 21st Century give a ◊◊◊◊ what they thought? Why is it held as nearly sacred and not a legal document to be amended when society gains more information or changes?

There is a process to follow. If you say the heck with the process, we don't need no stinking process, well then you have just tossed the rest of the constitution out the window, including the Bill of Rights. You're saying that the government can change the law to what it wants, when it wants. I would think even non-Americans should be able to understand why that is terrifying, and completely antithetical to the concept of freedom.

 

[Darat]

A gun is not designed to kill anyone. Its designed to shoot a bullet. The bullet, however, may be designed to cause more harm to a person or to simply be for targets. Or may be designed to stop an approaching attacker.

 

[arthwollipot]

The original guns of course were what we would describe as cannon, and they were invented in China.

You've no idea how much restraint I had to exercise to not say that guns were invented by the Turks.

 

[acbytesla]

I have a question to the American posters here with regard to what the founders intended. Let's assume that they explicitly intended to be in the exact position that the US is in now. Hell, let's assume further they wanted entirely unrestricted gun ownership, anyone who wants a vulcan chaingun can have one if they can afford it, no limits.

So we're in pretend land? What color are the clouds here?

It's called a hypothetical.

Why should literally anyone in the 21st Century give a ◊◊◊◊ what they thought? Why is it held as nearly sacred and not a legal document to be amended when society gains more information or changes?

There is a process to follow. If you say the heck with the process, we don't need no stinking process, well then you have just tossed the rest of the constitution out the window, including the Bill of Rights. You're saying that the government can change the law to what it wants, when it wants. I would think even non-Americans should be able to understand why that is terrifying, and completely antithetical to the concept of frfreedom.

He said nothing about the Constitution or process. When it comes to guns the government has been changing the laws by interpreting it differently over the last two hundred and thirty six years. Until recently, the Second Amendment has been defined not that each individual had unlimited right to every type of firearm available, but each State was entitled to have a State militia.

But even if you argue that no each individual had the right, you must concede that the founder's lack the context of the modern world should devalue that opinion. What they thought about muskets in a a nation of four million farmers and trappers should hardly apply to automatic firearms in a modern nation of 350 million people. It is truly absurd we should care.

Having said that, anyone pointing to the Bible to justify their actions is even more absurd than pointing to the US Constitution.

 

[Hercules56]

Kindly give some examples of how guns available to civilians were designed to kill humans.

 

[Steve]

Kindly give some examples of how guns available to civilians were designed to kill humans.

Guns are designed to kill. Indiscriminately. They will kill a human as readily as any other creature. Most gun owning US civilians have only one target in mind when they acquire a gun. A target that walks on two legs.