well he vetoed it...

[kcatto]

I don't think you have to have blind faith in anything.

That said, I find it a little persuasive when just about all of the Supreme Court Justices agree.

When a person has devoted his/her life to a topic and chosen to do it as a profession and has successfully done so for years, I take their opinion much more seriously than someone on the internet whose experience I don't know.

When my doctor tells me I need to take Lipitor and the benefits of the Lipitor are greater than the risks and the other doctors I talk to agree, I take the Lipitor.

I don't go to the internet and take the opinion of a bunch of unqualified people who tell me how dangerous it is to take Lipitor.

Michael Brown

I believe the Constitution was written very clearly with a lot of common sense.... written in simple english for all common people to understand when taken as a whole.... but unfortunately as my grandfather used to tell me "common sense is not to common" and I have found through my travels in many, many countries and states, and throughout my years of living and serving that usually the most educated people are the ones with the least amount of common sense....

I will state once again, if you read the constitution from beginning to the end you will realize that it is very easy to understand and comprehend.... these educated people you speak of (lawyers) that devote their entire lives to one subject cannot see the big picture to the constitution and therefore nit-pick it to death.... they tend to worry about was there a comma or does it mean the national guard???? No common sense would tell you that our unalienable rights are for we the people, which is a collective term of individuals.... I am confident in saying that if the fore fathers would have known the nit-picky crap that these people do to our beloved constitution, they would have started each amendment with for the individual.... but they did not because the whole constitution was written for the individual with a little common sense.... Therefore the second amendment should have said "the right to keep and bear arms by all individuals shall not be infringed"....

There was another thing my grandfather used to say to me after getting back from WWII he used to say "I would take 20 men with common sense over 50 with college educations and no life experience"....

I am not saying a college education is bad but common sense has sure served me better than my degree, so far in life....

 

[Michael Brown]

I believe the Constitution was written very clearly with a lot of common sense.... written in simple english for all common people to understand when taken as a whole.... but unfortunately as my grandfather used to tell me "common sense is not to common" and I have found through my travels in many, many countries and states, and throughout my years of living and serving that usually the most educated people are the ones with the least amount of common sense....

I will state once again, if you read the constitution from beginning to the end you will realize that it is very easy to understand and comprehend.... these educated people you speak of that devote their entire lives to one subject cannot see the big picture to the constitution and therefore nit-pick it to death.... they tend to worry about was there a comma or does it mean the national guard???? No common sense would tell you that our unalienable rights are for we the people, which is a collective term of individuals.... I am confident in saying that if the fore fathers would have known the nit-picky crap that these people do to our beloved constitution, they would have started each amendment with for the individual.... but they did not because the whole constitution was written for the individual with a little common sense.... Therefore the second amendment should have said "the right to keep and bear arms by all individuals shall not be infringed"....

Given that such a large percentage of the population was not literate at the time, I don't agree with your conclusions.

There was another thing my grandfather used to say to me after getting back from WWII he used to say "I would take 20 men with common sense over 50 with college educations and no life experience"....

At Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal or even my much less dangerous job, I agree with your grandfather.

When it comes to legal interpretation, I'd prefer my scholars not get their education on the internet.

But to each his own..........

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

So you agree with a state law that allows pen carry, as long is there a loophole allowing cities to over ride that law. Hmmm. Interesting.

Yes. I believe an individual jurisdiction should be able to determine whether to allow open carry based on it's citizens' wishes.

Your definition of discretion escapes me. It is defined thusly:

I don't believe that I defined it in my post but I am satisfied by the definition you posted.

If you don't vote for it, are you not, in effect, voting against it, especially in this instance?

Am I?

Should it come up for a public vote, I will likely not vote so is my vote "for" or "against"?

You should feel free to be the arbitor of this particular decision, so if you prefer "against", I will go along since it is of minimal importance to me.

Michael Brown

 

[kcatto]

Given that such a large percentage of the population was not literate at the time, I don't agree with your conclusions.

At Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal or even my much less dangerous job, I agree with your grandfather.

When it comes to legal interpretation, I'd prefer my scholars not get their education on the internet.

But to each his own..........

Well that is where I believe the constitution shines brightest... A person can be read the constitution and then they understand their rights... because even an illiterate person can have common sense..



Never once did I or any one else on this thread ever advocate getting and education on the internet.... but then again using your doctor example... I would never take the word of a doctor as gospel, without doing some due diligent research of my own on liptor before introducing it into my body....

The internet is a vast resource of research material, but once again one must have common sense to comprehend it.... and remember common sense is not to common.... people today are trained from kindergarten up, to never question the teachings of anyone of authority... just to fall in line and be a good peasant.... I question almost everything, whether it be from a doctor, lawyer, teacher just because they have a degree and a title does not make them correct in their interpretations or their advise.... Remember jack kevorkian is a doctor, so under your reasoning if he treated you with cyanide for your cholesterol instead of with lipitor you would not question it.... since he is of course a scholar in his field....

 

[Michael Brown]

The internet is a vast resource of research material, but once again one must have common sense to comprehend it.... and remember common sense is not to common.... people today are trained from kindergarten up, to never question the teachings of anyone of authority... just to fall in line and be a good peasant.... I question almost everything, whether it be from a doctor, lawyer, teacher just because they have a degree and a title does not make them correct in their interpretations or their advise....

The internet CAN be a vast resource of research material but I suspect most do not have the education to understand, the common sense to apply or the desire to pour over the majority of it.

Most will just read the headlines and say they rely on their "common sense".

Remember jack kevorkian is a doctor, so under your reasoning if he treated you with cyanide for your cholesterol instead of with lipitor you would not question it.... since he is of course a scholar in his field....

Re-read the post and apply the common sense you are touting.

Michael Brown

 

[kcatto]

The internet CAN be a vast resource of research material but I suspect most do not have the education to understand, the common sense to apply or the desire to pour over the majority of it.

Most will just read the headlines and say they rely on their "common sense".



Re-read the post and apply the common sense you are touting.

Michael Brown

I was just merely pointing out that just because someone is a scholar one should not blindly follow their advise or their teachings.... and just because the supreme court is ruling on things, does not make what they rule on correct it just makes things the law, which we all know of unjust laws, seat belts, helmet laws, mandatory car insurance, etc....they are attorneys after all, and attorneys deal in technicalities and not in common sense....

About the analogy with Dr Kevorkian it is pretty silly but you said yourself you would take the advice of a doctor over any advise on the internet merely I am assuming because he has a degree and a title.... I would not literally expect you to take the cyanide but it is a humorous way of looking at your original analogy of the doctor....

Open carry is a right, and those rights should not be allowed to be trampled on by the states.... if we were talking about something that was not in the constitution then the state can and will regulate it at will but they are infringing on your right to bear arms... which means "carry weapons"... So technically you have the right to keep and carry any weapon you see fit to provide you with self defense.... everyone has a right to self preservation....

 

[elance]

I'm impressed ,i can hear frustration and disbelief and sincerity ,but it hasn't degraded to a lock down . and i find that i read the threads that have strong opposing viewpoints without the cattiness .

personally i like options even if i don't exercise them .

keep up the good fight . and thanks


elance

 

[henschman]

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law? SAYS WHO?

Also, the United States were the most literate society in the world when the Constitution was written. Literacy among adult white males in colonial America during the late 1700s was between 70 to 100 percent, depending on region, with New England having the highest rates. See Lawrence A. Cremin, The Colonial Experience.

Certainly the Constitution was written in words that everyone can understand. However, it is not always readily apparent exactly what they meant by those words -- they used somewhat vague language in many parts of the document. This reflects the fact that it was a compromise document from the get-go, and in order to be ratified it had to be acceptable to different factions who probably read certain parts of it very differently. So I don't think there is just one authoritative original interpretation... I think there were a range of original interpretations, which the founders left for us to hash out -- for better or worse -- with the political process, the courts, force of arms... they didn't really specify how. However, the way that some parts of the Constitution have been interpreted by the Supreme Court are completely beyond what ANYBODY would have read that document to mean in 1787... the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the most notorious in that category.

The Constitution does not contain any provision about who is authorized to interpret it. In fact, James Madison, the main contributor to the final draft, believed that state governments had the power to interpret the Constitution, and if they believed the national government was over-stepping its bounds, the states should pass laws nullifying the federal laws within their territories and interpose themselves to protect their citizens. Thomas Jefferson agreed. Shortly after ratification, exactly this occurred with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which nullified the federal Alien and Sedition Acts within those states.

And when it comes to trusting those supposed great legal minds on the Supreme Court, I do not trust anybody's judgment on something that I can read and research just as well as they can, and I certainly won't trust the judgment of a group of 9 lawyers who were selected primarily for the political agenda that they decide cases according to. Everybody's got an agenda, including lifetime judicial appointees. They probably have more of an agenda than lots of folks in government -- they are just really good at putting on aires of impartiality, and they are VERY cunning in how they promote that agenda with their judicial opinions.

 

[arkyhog]

Yes. I believe an individual jurisdiction should be able to determine whether to allow open carry based on it's citizens' wishes.

I don't believe that I defined it in my post but I am satisfied by the definition you posted.

Michael Brown

Oklahoma has one of the most detailed preemption of firearms laws in the country (Oklahoma Statutes title 21, § 1289.24). This law is written in such great detail for many reasons (liability for one), but one of the best motivations for this law is to keep the state from becoming a mind-blowing patchwork of gun laws which change from municipality to municipality. Opening the pandora's box of allowing each city and county to change any gun law is destructive to a person's civil rights in the state. Imagine each city writing their own very vague gun laws and then enforcing them as they see fit... A salesman making calls from town to town would be thoroughly confused and at the mercy of law enforcement officers' knowledge of city and county law and how they wanted to enforce it. Allowing this to happen would be a disgrace!

As to government restriction of "right to bear arms"... Government restriction was allowed originally to outlaw concealed carry, as it was a dastardly thing to do and had no honor. Restriction was allowed due to concealed carry not being considered a "militia-type" form of carry. Since the Heller decision declared RTKBA an individual right, this outlawing of "militia-type" carry may also be considered a civil rights violation.

The right to bear arms MAY be restricted by the government, in my opinion, for the safety of its citizens. However, the banning of bearing arms is an infringement of the Second Amendment right (except to felons, and that may change). I believe the government may only regulate the manner of open carry, such as firearm must be properly carried in a holster (not gangster-carry) and cannot be carried in the hand.

 

[1shot(bob)]

I am not permitted to carry openly when not at work.

If what you're arguing is that a uniformed LEO is not different than any other non-uniformed person, I'm not sure what to say since LEO's take on responsibilities others do not. The whole power and responsibility being commensurate deal.

You, as a police officer, are allowed to carry places and times that I am not allowed to do so. Open carry or not, my rights in this area are different (less) than yours.
Power and responsibility have nothing to do with this topic.

If you're trying to argue that you should be able to open carry BECAUSE a uniformed LEO does, I simply have to chalk your posts up to whiny bickering.

Michael Brown

Chalk my posts up to anything you want. I don't want to open carry because LEOs do. I want to open carry because it is my inalienable right to do so, and currently that right is being denied me.