OT - 11/13/2015 Paris

[elocomotive]

I'm not attributing that position to Jefferson at all though. I am attributing it to those who seek to pass laws that would violate the 2nd Amendment without actually doing anything about the 2nd amendment itself. If you want to say that you don't know anyone like that and/or you've never heard an argument like that I guess I'll take your word for it, but it seemed rather unlikely to me when I made the point.

My point is we have a myriad of laws surrounding any and all components of the Constitution - free speech, guns, interstate commerce, taxation, etc. - that do not require a constitutional amendment to create. The Constitution provides only a framework, the individual components of it's language are subject to interpretation that changes over time.

People tend to get riled up about people passing "unconstitutional laws," but the courts are the body that decide constitutionality. And ANY law could be considered constitutional or unconstitutional based on the reading. As regards to the second amendment as an example, what do we define as "arms?" Small arms? Tanks? Grenades? Surface to air missiles? A fighter jet? Types of ammo? Huskerdoos? Huskerdonts? The amendment doesn't say. So how we define "arms" becomes part of the dialogue on what is or is not constitutional. And as technology, time, and values change, how one might interpret this will also change. And that's just one damn word.

So saying "seek to pass laws that would violate..." is not a bright line or a fair assessment as these are constantly evolving processes and what you and I might see as constitutional can and will be different. And because we see that as different doesn't mean one of us believes in the Constitution or not.

 

[DragonfromTO]

My point is we have a myriad of laws surrounding any and all components of the Constitution - free speech, guns, interstate commerce, taxation, etc. - that do not require a constitutional amendment to create. The Constitution provides only a framework, the individual components of it's language are subject to interpretation that changes over time.

People tend to get riled up about people passing "unconstitutional laws," but the courts are the body that decide constitutionality. And ANY law could be considered constitutional or unconstitutional based on the reading. As regards to the second amendment as an example, what do we define as "arms?" Small arms? Tanks? Grenades? Surface to air missiles? A fighter jet? Types of ammo? Huskerdoos? Huskerdonts? The amendment doesn't say. So how we define "arms" becomes part of the dialogue on what is or is not constitutional. And as technology, time, and values change, how one might interpret this will also change. And that's just one damn word.

So saying "seek to pass laws that would violate..." is not a bright line or a fair assessment as these are constantly evolving processes and what you and I might see as constitutional can and will be different. And because we see that as different doesn't mean one of us believes in the Constitution or not.

I'm not saying that I don't think that you believe in the Constitution, let me make that clear right off the bat.
Out of curiosity though, do you believe that enslaving someone has always been unConstitutional in the USA or do you believe that it merely became unConstitutional with the passing of the 13th amendment? It seems like you see it as the latter, whereas I've always interpreted the answer as the former (and therefore see many of the courts' decisions regarding slavery prior to the 13th as simply being "wrong" and unConstitutional).

Some of this seems like nitpicking over words, but I've had somewhat similar conversations regarding "rights". Some people believe that your rights stop existing if the country you're living in stops recognizing them. I don't think of "rights" that way (then again the list of "rights" that I recognize is probably much shorter than a lot of people's anyway )

And I'm sorry, but "People tend to get riled up about people passing "unconstitutional laws," but the courts are the body that decide constitutionality. And ANY law could be considered constitutional or unconstitutional based on the reading." sounds way too much like "all of you unwashed masses should just take what we give you and shut up about it!" for my tastes, and I don't think you meant for it to come across that way.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Because it's usually a spurious correlation - the question is what are the income levels and education levels in those cities, because that is often CAUSATIONAL to crime. Additionally, studies have shown that drug use rates are roughly equal by race, and yet African Americans are arrested and convicted at higher rates than other races, so that could skew the crime statistics as well. I just don't believe nor have I read in any studies that race is a CAUSE of crime. I believe it's the underlying characteristics that relate to race that are causal factors in crime.

I'd like to see violent crime rates as they pertain to drugs and race - I couldn't find any good studies or stats but that likely plays a huge part in perception of the black urban population, and that is where most of the problems in white perception of the black population lies. I'm guessing a large majority of black-on-black violent crime relates to narcotics and while poverty is obviously causational I don't think it has to be the deterrent to reform that we've just accepted that it's been for the past half century.

 

[dash]

Syrian refugees arrive in Calgary, reunite with families