2ND Amendment question from an Australian

To answer your original question, in part, it's first necessary to say that different courts will reach different conclusions on basically the same evidence. In my opinion, it's because courts, liberal or conservative, generally tend toward a decision that fits what they want to happen, so they bend their "reasoning" to fit the result, rather than using their reasoning to reach a result. Basically, they start with the result and backwards engineer their way to the facts.

So you'll see something like the 9th Circuit reaching a decision in a gun case and basing its rationale on a "collective rights" reading of the 2A, and the 5th Circuit reaching a decision in a gun case and basing its rationale on an "individual rights" reading of the 2A.

Which means if you come over here, you need to do some research, because there can be significant differences between individual states. For me, a good starting point is the Brady Campaign's grading of states. Any state with a grade of F, D, or C merits consideration; any state with a grade of A or B if out of consideration.

Anyway, good luck. It's a shame you're thinking of leaving Australia. I spent a few days in Sydney once and loved it. But that was about 15 years ago.
 
Yep, it's amazing how much the antis can contort things. It all comes down to the fact that the 2A has been viewed as not prohibiting "reasonable regulation" of firearms. There are some here who would have you believe that it is reasonable to disallow any private citizen to own one. Thankfully, I don't think we'll ever go that far, but there will always be a battle in defining reasonable. And we will always have the problem that ground conceded requires much more effort to regain than it did to take in the first time.
 
To answer your original question, in part, it's first necessary to say that different courts will reach different conclusions on basically the same evidence.
Click to expand...
I understand what your saying and maybe I'm just being way to simplistic but the 2A has been around a long time now and these problems seem to mainly originate in the latter 20th century. If I'm correct and there were no real challenges for the first 150-200 years that in itself would seem to indicate that the courts understood perfectly well what it meant. I don't see how all the social engineers in the world can alter what is written in plain english ( in my view ) and what has been accepted fact for the best part of 200 years.
 
In part, it's a component of the "Living Constitution" argument that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times. Which essentially means it's anchorless. So some people are using this argument as a tool to gain control.

More significantly, it's a demonstration that the Founding Fathers were right. They knew from the beginning that greed and ambition would continuously rip and tear at freedom and liberty, so they put certain safeguards in place. We inherited a miraculous level of freedom, but that inheritance can only do so much. Whether to invest or to squander that inheritance is the choice every generation must make.
 
In part, it's a component of the "Living Constitution" argument that the meaning of the Constitution changes with the times.
Click to expand...


More significantly, it's a demonstration that the Founding Fathers were right. They knew from the beginning that greed and ambition would continuously rip and tear at freedom and liberty, so they put certain safeguards in place.
Click to expand...

With respect the living constitution interpretation would obviously make any safeguards irrelevant.
What is the basis for the " living " constitution argument ?.
 
The only basis for the "Living Constitution" I can think of is that it's an expedient for getting around the Constitution. For that reason, I give it no respect.

Imagine yourself having a contract with someone for them to guarantee you a certain number of widgets. Halfway through the delivery, you start getting doodads. You contact the supplier about the change, and he says, "I believe we have a living contract. Although the written words say I'm supposed to deliver widgets, times have changed and I've decided that what is best for you are doodads. Oh and by the way, you'll get half as many doodads as you were supposed to get widgets. And oh by the way, next week you might get thingamabobs because I'm starting to think those are better than either widgets or doodads."

Doesn't sound like a good contract to me.

The Constitution has a change mechanism already. It's called an amendment. The process is lengthy and difficult so as to inhibit abuse of the mechanism, and that causes heartburn for those who feel they know best how to run other peoples' lives. People who want to control others are usually in a hurry to do so.

People have always wanted to control the lives of others. The Founding Fathers understood human nature, so they established safeguards. The "Living Constitution" idea is simple one of the many forms of attack used to destroy those safeguards.
 
Imagine yourself having a contract with someone for them to guarantee you a certain number of widgets. Halfway through the delivery, you start getting doodads. You contact the supplier about the change, and he says, "I believe we have a living contract. Although the written words say I'm supposed to deliver widgets, times have changed and I've decided that what is best for you are doodads. Oh and by the way, you'll get half as many doodads as you were supposed to get widgets. And oh by the way, next week you might get thingamabobs because I'm starting to think those are better than either widgets or doodads."
Click to expand...

Thats quite a good way of explaining it:D. I guess your point brings us back to the start in that the right IS there but how long it remains so depends on people as a whole standing up for that right or else it will, in time, be eroded.
 
I guess your point brings us back to the start in that the right IS there but how long it remains so depends on people as a whole standing up for that right or else it will, in time, be eroded.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my take on it. IMHO, too many people take for granted what we have. Despite the occasional horror story, compared to most other governments our government has been relatively benign in its treatment of its citizens. You get used to it and begin to assume it will always be benign. You actually get to the point to where you cannot imagine it being anything other than benign.

It's sort of like being a chicken. Every day, the farmer comes out and spreads cornmeal for you to eat. Rain, shine, sun, snow: It's that way every day. So one sunny day when you see the farmer in the yard, you run out to eat cornmeal. But instead the farmer suddenly grabs you, chops off your head, tears the feathers off your body, rips out your guts, cooks you in a pan, and then eats you. Nothing in your life as a chicken hinted any of that would happen ... unless, of course, you bothered to find out what happened to all those other chickens that had disappeared in the past.

A tad graphic, perhaps, but civilization is built upon a barbarous past.
 
Interesting thing I find about the right to bear arms is that when included in the Bill of Rights it represented the ultimate power of the people to do away with a corrupt government (ie if the 'President' had become a pseudo 'king').

How does one cope with the 'individual right' concept- when placed into this original context- in an environment of terrorism? Afterall, to the British, the founding fathers would have been terrorists.

I believe in the RTBA because I believe democracy to be quite fragile and one day it may need to be protected from external attack. The French like liberal gun laws for this reason.
 
Along similar lines, I recall reading that the Soviets decided they could never successfully invade the US because "behind every blade of grass there is a rifle" or something like that. I think the same holds true against terrorism and terrorists.

Tyrants come in many guises, be they our own politicians, the Soviets, terrorists, or armed psychopaths.
 
Tyrants come in many guises, be they our own politicians, the Soviets, terrorists, or armed psychopaths.
Click to expand...
Why we treat the first any differently than the others is beyond me. The effects are the same, the intent often the same, and many times the people just the same.
 
Your welcome here if you have to move, but I would hope there are enough patriots in Australia to reverse these moves by the very rich and nervous, to restore medieval times. (Some call it "liberal" but I don't understand why.)

Australia needs people that will restore natural rights, before the whole world returns to some form of oppressive "cast" system. What happens in Australia VERY strongly influences what happens in the United States.

People forget, or never even studied, the struggle to break free of the rigid organized society ruthlessly ruled by the impulses of self serving, self promoted, nobility.

Don't run, get politically active, is my hope.
 
Well, basically, the national government used to be very limited in its powers. There was a 2nd amendment, but it wasn't the linchpin of anything, because the states had almost all of the power down at the individual level. Then there was a war in which the national government conquered the states and the underlying principle of the Constitution (limited national power) became inoperative. Now the national government has by far the more power over the individual, so the 2nd amendment becomes important. There's a lot of outdated reasoning left over from when the states were more important and so 2nd amendment rights aren't respected by some states and localities. Now that the national government's power is so pervasive, it's being called upon to assure 2nd amendment rights nationwide and to overrule local and state restrictions (as it has done for other Constitutional rights).
 
have you seen how complex the immigration laws are in USA?
i looked into it once (not because of guns but just because i love the place) read through the USCIS website and wrote the whole thing off as a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top