The Cesspool That is Our Capital

[ddmoit]

The District of Columbia has to be one of the most government-controlled places in our country. That is why I am not surprised to see stories like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/us/27aids.html?ex=1196744400&en=b0d1fb1313260747&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

The District of Columbia has the highest rate of AIDS infection of any city in the country and the disease is being transmitted to infants, older adults, women and heterosexual men at an epidemic pace, according to a report released Monday by city health officials. Our capital is one failed government experiment after another, and yet we clamor for more.

[Sponsored Links]

[Scooter]

AIDS is a function of homosexuality and drug users.

It has nothing to do with government.

Does it surprise you that most of Washington DC is minority and poor, ripe targets for intervenious drug use, which I suspect is the real culprit.

[kate42]

The District of Columbia has the highest rate of AIDS infection of any city in the country

This does not surprise me at all. It is a shame, though. When will people learn? There is no such thing as free love.
I have a sister in the health care profession and STD types are now in the hundreds. It used to be 3. In many cases, by the time a STD infected person is correctly diagnosed, it's too late.

[MudMaker]

The District of Columbia hasn't done well with Gun Control either.. :)
Very High Death rate..

[Scooter]

Frank, I'm a big fan of gun control and more of it, but on this score I will agree with you. This may be the only thing we ever agree on.

Washington DC is comprised of poorly educated minorities, with very low wages whose way of life encompasses crime, passion and guns.

The concept that a poor ill educated population with a history of gangstas and guns would not have the highest murder rate is something that would not surprise anyone, I believe.

[MudMaker]

We both gave money to the books for soldiers too.... :shades:

[MHI]

"Frank, I'm a big fan of gun control and more of it".

Scooter, when you come for me, its going to be either you or my cold dead fingers.:)

[kate42]

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Gun Control Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?ex=1353301200&en=5dd82ea783574907&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Scooter]

I suspect the Supreme Court took the case for a reason. The issue seems to be whether the right to bear arms is an individual right or is tied to membership in a militia. This is a single sentence, and to me a fair reading suggests that one has to be in a militia to bear arms, but it depends how you understand what that comma means.

It may be the Supreme Court that comes and gets your guns. I hope its Clarence Thomas that knocks on your door.

[MHI]

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Well outlaws and the government of course. If there is a difference.

Scooter, is this what you want? Any logically thinking person could understand what it will be like if only criminals had guns.

Gun control is about control.:)

I would have a gun either way. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[kate42]

:wave:

Although I do not own, or ever have, a gun, I do feel that law abiding citizens of this country do not have the right to own a gun.
If I felt the need to own a gun, I would. I suppose where and how I was brought up somehow has determined my necessity for the need of any type of gun.
My way of life does not mean that others who live elsewhere should not be entitled to a gun.

[Scooter]

I don't mean to marginalize your feelings, but quite frankly what you are I "feel" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says. The Second Amendment says:

"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."

Now, it seems to me that the portion of the sentence after the comma refers back to the militia, and that two concepts, freedom to bear arms and the right of a militia of a free State (and by State, I think they meant the Nation, not an individual State) are tied.

Had the framers wanted individuals to own guns outside a militia, they just woulda said so, and not tied it to militias. The Supremes will answer this question. And, contrary to the thoughts on this board, will make law.


I think I've just jacked this thread :topicoff: :jacked:

[MHI]

You think that the "people" refers to the "milita"? If thats the case, than the people and the Milita are the same, correct?

What are the ordianry citizens called?

[scuttlebuttrp]

"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."

Back in the day when this statement was created; there wasn't a standing army on the size we have now. The militia was the people who lived there, and they needed guns to participate in this. Not to mention providing for their families.
Besides protection from those who would cause us harm, the founders didn't trust their government of the time or the way said government treated them. This would be a peoples check on the government.
But why still now? Can you name one country that would be stupid enough to attack us? We're very heavily armed here and can provide excellent backup. Could you imagine if the people of Iraq actually liked Saddam and were as heavily armed as we are. Our troops would've paid dearly. Even if we disagree with whoever our current president is( Bush,Clinton, Ron Paul) I would think every person here would make any invading army seriously regret trying.
Besides, Who took the peoples guns away when they came to power?
Lenin, Hitler,etc... They knew better than to leave their people armed. Our government though I think can trust the people here. Even if we hate the head, we'll support the whole to the death.

[kate42]

I don't mean to marginalize your feelings, but quite frankly what you are I "feel" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says

Would it have been better if "I think" was said instead of "I feel"? :shrug:

[jvcstone]

Besides protection from those who would cause us harm, the founders didn't trust their government of the time or the way said government treated them. This would be a peoples check on the government.
But why still now? Can you name one country that would be stupid enough to attack us? We're very heavily armed here and can provide excellent backup.

The second amendment was added to give the "people" not protection from outside threats, but to give the people a means to protect themselves from their own government. Scooter, when the constitution says states, the framers meant just that. The over riding fear was of a strong central government, and IMHO, we the people need our second amendment rights now more than ever because as the central government becomes ever more powerful, we as a people become less and less free. The erosion to our birthright has been slowly happening for a long time now, but during the past few years, that rate of erosion has increased dramatically. The patriot act is a good example, and there is a bill in congress right now (HR 1955) that has passed the house, and is now in the senate. Read it, and then tell me how much you trust our central government not to violate your rights. Hell, just a post of this nature could get me incarcerated as a "terrorist" without charge, or legal rights if this monstrosity becomes law.

I'm afraid that with all the smoke and mirrors our government puts in front of it's actions, the distractions that are intended to polarize our nation will prevent the people from coming together to take back control of their government from the small but powerful group that has control now. Our government talks a good "democracy" game, but it is free choice, and free thinking (democracy) that scares the Washington insiders to death--whether abroad, or here at home. I believe that if our current course is not stopped soon, within another generation the destruction of our constitution will be complete, and you, (I'll be gone by then, I'm sure) will be living in a country very reminiscent of the late Stalinist Soviet Union.

JVC

[MudMaker]

So, come election time, make sure not to vote for Hitlary....
and take the lesser of the two evils... :D

[Scooter]

You think that the "people" refers to the "milita"? If thats the case, than the people and the Milita are the same, correct? By my read of that sentence, "People" refers only to people in the militia. And yes, if the "People" are in the militia, then yes, they are one and the same.

Back in the day when this statement was created; there wasn't a standing army on the size we have now. That tiny standing Army you are referring to defeated the most powerful Army in the World, the British. The vast majority of the soldiers were paid soldiers of individual colonies, not militia. And I would point out the word "Militia" is modified by the word "State" which is singular, meaning a single nation, not the individuals "States" or "Colonies". Had the framers wanted to refer to a States' Militia, they would have used the word "States" because in talking about powers vested to the States, the framers use the plural form of the word throughout the Constitution.Could you imagine if the people of Iraq actually liked Saddam and were as heavily armed as we are. Uhhh, Dude, they are really well armed, have IED's suicide vests etc, unless you've been out of town for the last 3 years.

You strict constructionists want to salt the sacred text of this document with thoughts, feelings and historical background, which is fine, but I want to simply focus on the 2nd Amendment's exact words and what they mean, albeit in a vacuum.

[scuttlebuttrp]

Uhhh, Dude, they are really well armed, have IED's suicide vests etc, unless you've been out of town for the last 3 years

The IED's and suicide vests came later with the al qaida folks, support from Iran, etc..
I meant the normal people of Iraq when the invasion started. It's the same reason ( at least stated reason) that we dropped the bomb instead of invading Japan. We had just went through hell island hopping across the Pacific, when we got to the mainland it would've been the worst battle of the war.
The army we had back in the day really wore the British out instead of a real decisive defeat. They got sick of us more than anything. It was becoming too costly for them. That's the same stuff the Vietcong pulled on us and the french, and the same thing they're trying tgo pull now in Iraq. We never lost. We could've made any of these countries a barren wasteland but we won't and they know it.
I have an Iraqi freind who was a refugee from the first Gulf war. He was from Basra. Him and his freinds were buying guns from the Iraqi soldiers while we were invading. The soldiers didn't care enough to fight. They wanted the money to feed their families. My freind and his buddies were buying the guns to help with the uprising against Saddam. These people hated their government. That was my point. We piss and moan about the other side of the spectrum, but if someone invaded; I feel pretty confident that the people here would stand up together and fight with, not against our own government.

BTW JVC, I edited that paragraph after I wrote it. I didn't have the nerve to even go there in such a public place. Freaking ANTI-patriot act.

One more point. This thread started as a bash on D.C. and how crime ridden it was. They have some of the toughest gun laws around. Are those laws helping them any? Also keep hearing about soaring crime problems with guns in Australia and Great Britain with there tough laws. Are they working for them? Anybody have the info on states with liberal gun laws, or even better, laws targeting criminals and guns instead of homeowners?

[scuttlebuttrp]

Scooter,
I don't even know what a strict constructionist is. But read the words.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The historical context stuff simply explains what they were meaning and why. But it states it pretty straightforward don't you think.

[Scooter]

Thats a great quote, but you are leaving out the first half of the sentence. The whole sentence reads:

"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."

The last half of the sentence is modified by the first half. Nice try.

And to answer another poster's question, no, I don't think laws against guns, prostitution, drugs, armed robbery, or corruption have worked well in Washington DC. Doesn't mean we scrap them all.

[ddmoit]

Scooter, I wish that the meaning of the Second Amendment was more clear as a stand-alone sentence.

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. A reasonable person can interpret the sentence to mean that armed citizens are a necessary condition for a "well regulated militia". (Incidentally, the constitution of the state of Indiana defines most of its citizens as being members of the militia (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-12.html#sec-1) in order to give the amendment more clarity.)

A reasonable person may also look to the writings of the framers to discover intent. I think it is pretty clear that the framers of the Constitution believed that citizens had right to bear arms.

[HS345]

Dan, Excellent posting my friend. I don't see how the second amendment could be interpreted any other way, by a reasonable person.

[Jeremy]

I wasnt there when the Constitution was written :o but I dont think the "founding fathers" were able to foresee a certain group of people using guns to annihilate their own race. I think the real issue in these discussions is ALWAYS overlooked because of cowardice dishonesty, and an overwhelming desire to be politically correct. Lets keep on this chicken$hit path and see where it leads.

Guns are not, and have never been the issue. Its certain PEOPLE which are the reason for these problems, NOT a damn gun. When is the last time you observed a gun run up to a car and shoot the driver for a crack rock, or because the gun wanted the drivers sneakers? If you REALLY want to educate yourself to crime statistics in this country, go do a little research and see where the crime is from and who the perpetrators are, THEN give your opinion.

I am sick of people infringing on MY rights and MY freedoms on the account of a relatively small group of "people" who are unable to conform to a civilized society. Its the old adage, "Give them an inch, and they will take a foot"...

And thats where it now stands.

[Scooter]

I agree, Dan and your interpretation would read thusly:

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Make the thought two sentences. But its not, is it?

These guys could read and write English better than you or me, and the thought that they were so stupid, that the sentence is ambiguous is laughable. These guys were smart guys and knew exactly what they are saying.

The sentence is clear as written and requires no writings or historical context to interpret it. It says what it says, and the meaning is clear.

I find it interesting that conservatives begrudge courts "making law" and not following the strict words of the Constituion, but when confronted with clear language for something they disagree with, then judicial construction is OK. You can't have it both ways.

[ddmoit]

Jeremy,

I will add to your comment that the problems you describe are made worse when the government enacts laws that create black markets. The war on drugs is a prime example.

The war on drugs has not eliminated drugs; we don't even know if drug usage is even reduced. We do know that the drug war has led to increased crime, overcrowded jails, and a shameful incarceration rate.

Black market businesses have no legal resource to settle disputes, so disagreements are settled violently in the streets. The supply pressures placed on drugs by enforcement have the effect of increasing the price and profit margins on street drugs. This creates at least two problems. Folks who might otherwise engage in lawful enterprises are drawn to the high profitability of the drug trade. And, customers frequently resort to crime to afford the artificially high prices of street drugs.

I like ibuprofen. Fortunately it's still legal. Nobody is trying to manufacture it in shoddy labs in houses in my neighborhood. Rival ibuprofen manufacturers are not shooting it out in my streets. Since the government is not spending my money to thwart the production of ibuprofen, it is reasonably priced, and fits nicely into my budget.

[jvcstone]

Scooter.

Put the emphasis where it belongs--on the second clause. That comma has been a source of contention for a long time, but just read it out loud and the rhythm of the entire sentence will tell you what was intended.

JVC

[sandbagger]

applying 21st-Century grammar syntax to 18th-Century English is a bit problematic, methinks. :stick: So I think it is appropriate - actually, necessary - to look at the people who wrote the Constitution AND the people who approved it. Would those people want to control individual ownership of guns? Would they have ratified the 2nd Amendment if they had an inkling that it said what Scooter would like for it to say? Would the US citizens of 1791 have voted to take the guns out of their own hands? :lol1: :lol1:

and fwiw - don't count on the Supremes making a sweeping, definitive stand on the 2nd Amendment. That would be inconsistent with their past history on the subject. :sheep:

[dl]

> and fwiw - don't count on the Supremes making a sweeping, definitive stand on the 2nd Amendment. That would be inconsistent with their past history on the subject.

Indeed, any decision here will be probably be fairly limited since it regards DC and not a state. fwiw the bulk of federal circuit court and district court decisions have sided with the "militia" interpretation, not the "individual" interpretation.

- DL

[MHI]

I think Scooter feels that the constitution give rights to the armed forces only, and it is not for the ordinary citizens.

Since when do the armed forces need rights to do anything?

If you don't like the idea of citizens having rights, then I suggest moving to Cuba.:)

Dan, unfortunately the government is trying to outlaw pseudoephedrine. The cost has gone up a little, and it is a pain in the ass to buy. Whats next?

[ddmoit]

I hear ya, Matt. Pseudoephedrine is my second favorite ailment drug. It pisses me off every time I have to "show my papers" just to buy it. What's more - even though my Wal*Mart is open 24 hours, the pharmacy is not, so I have to enter Wal*Mart at the worst time of the day if I want to get the best price.

Meanwhile, I don't think even a small dent has been made in the supply of meth. But, the day will come when a pharmacist is injured or killed in an armed robbery for meth supplies. Their blood will be on the hands of our lawmakers in addition to the perpetrators.

[kate42]

:wave:

Whats next?

OTC cold and cough medications for small children.