“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 opinion of the Supreme Court may be found here:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/16716940.pdf
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the peoples right to "keep and bear arms", or in modern parlance "possess and carry", subject to reasonable restrictions. It found that the District of Columbia's policy that made it unlawful to carry or possess an unlicensed firearm, and it's refusal to then issue licenses, UNREASONABLE.
It found that in the context of the constitution, written in a time and place where the majority owned firearms and carried them not only in the furtherance of their livelihood but in self-defense, that our founding fathers meant what they said... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Certainly the British would have had a much easier time at Lexington and Concord, not to mention Bunker Hill, had the Massachusetts colony implemented the same laws and policies as our modern capitol. After all, was not Lexington and Concord simply the British attempt to seize "unlawful", by their standard, arms?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is a prefatory clause, not limiting the following clause, but stating a purpose.
The operative clause being: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The court pointing out that in referring to "the people" the constitution refers to it's citizens, not it's army or any other organization. "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" does not imply membership in some sanctioned organization... it being impossible for an individual to assemble without others.
By all means, read the court's opinion... it's a bit lengthy (157 pages in the pdf version) but well worth the read, and one could argue, a civic duty.
What I find most difficult to understand is the dissenting opinion, how taking the constitution into the context of it's times, one could argue that the amendment merely protects the right to be in a militia, is beyond my grasp. Either we've been doing it wrong since day one, given the history of our behavior, or more likely we are ignoring history and context in the attempt to justify our own position in the furtherance of our own agenda.
Interpreting the right as a right to join a (the?) militia would certainly have major implications, would citizens then have the right to join regardless of the current military standards for fitness? What impact would a constitutional right to serve have on the current 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Although for some reason I get the feeling that that would be perfectly okay with those who want to ban gun ownership.
Well at least our rights are secure for the moment.
~Finntann~
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
The Pendulum Swings Left & Right
Does Labour's worst local election results in forty years indicate a swing to the right? Dropping to only a projected 24% share of the national vote now places Labour in third, behind the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Labor suffered a loss of 331 seats in local elections in England and Wales.
The question then becomes, is this any indication of where the general American election will go?
An interesting idea to contemplate is whether or not the general population is voting based on principle, or whether simply in a reactionary fashion. Labour, in power in the UK, suffers a significant loss... is this due to the abandonment of Labour's principles by the population at large, or simply due to the current state of dissatisfaction with the economy, taxes, bank-bailouts, and immigration problems. Could it be that these same issues will prompt a shift to the right in the UK while simultaneously causing a shift to the left in the US? Are we voting for principles? Or against the incumbents?
We define ourselves as Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Authoritarian... but how much difference is there between parties as opposed to candidates? An interesting take on this can be found at http://www.politicalcompass.org/. Take the test if you care to see how they rate you, but more specifically, check out their ratings of the US Primaries... in which 16 of 19 recognized candidates are firmly in the Authoritarian Right block. (Not sure what to think of their methodology, as they placed me, close to the cross-hairs (Centrist?) in the Libertarian Right quadrant).
Is this clustering to the Authoritarian Right indicative of anything other than our common American and/or Western values? World-wide the majority of political figures wind up in this same quadrant. An interesting point to note, is that in playing around with the compass test I had to go to (what I consider) extremes to push my score to the outside edges, which is either indicative of a centrist bias on the test, or a personal centrist bias... I'm not sure which (lol).
I would be curious to know if the candidates positions on the chart are a result of participation, or an analysis by others... and if by analysis, how much reliability can we place in the assessment.
~Finntann~
The question then becomes, is this any indication of where the general American election will go?
An interesting idea to contemplate is whether or not the general population is voting based on principle, or whether simply in a reactionary fashion. Labour, in power in the UK, suffers a significant loss... is this due to the abandonment of Labour's principles by the population at large, or simply due to the current state of dissatisfaction with the economy, taxes, bank-bailouts, and immigration problems. Could it be that these same issues will prompt a shift to the right in the UK while simultaneously causing a shift to the left in the US? Are we voting for principles? Or against the incumbents?
We define ourselves as Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Authoritarian... but how much difference is there between parties as opposed to candidates? An interesting take on this can be found at http://www.politicalcompass.org/. Take the test if you care to see how they rate you, but more specifically, check out their ratings of the US Primaries... in which 16 of 19 recognized candidates are firmly in the Authoritarian Right block. (Not sure what to think of their methodology, as they placed me, close to the cross-hairs (Centrist?) in the Libertarian Right quadrant).
Is this clustering to the Authoritarian Right indicative of anything other than our common American and/or Western values? World-wide the majority of political figures wind up in this same quadrant. An interesting point to note, is that in playing around with the compass test I had to go to (what I consider) extremes to push my score to the outside edges, which is either indicative of a centrist bias on the test, or a personal centrist bias... I'm not sure which (lol).
I would be curious to know if the candidates positions on the chart are a result of participation, or an analysis by others... and if by analysis, how much reliability can we place in the assessment.
~Finntann~
Friday, April 18, 2008
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thomas Jefferson
I find several things in the news today rather disturbing, indicative of the the gradual erosion of our rights and liberties, most given up without the merest whimper on our part. First is the Orthodox Jewish man removed from a flight for not taking his seat when requested to, since he was praying the Amidah, a prayer that is supposed to be said three times a day, not interrupted, and is only 3-4 minutes long. My understanding from the various articles I have read is that this incident took place during boarding, the man apologized at the end of his prayer, and that even with the time it took to remove the man from the flight, it arrived on time.
My problem here is not with removing passengers for failing to comply with flight attendants instructions, but in my frequent experience passengers often stand in the aisles or in the back of the plane for various reasons, presumably thinking that they are 'out of the way'. I have never seen a businessman on his cell phone asked to sit while standing back near the lavatories during boarding, and it is very hit or miss whether or not a person standing in the aisle talking with friends before take off will be asked to sit down, as I have been forced to squeeze past them on many occasions. This appears to me to be a selective enforcement of the rules which is a dangerous step down the road to tyranny. You can stand up so long as you look 'normal' and aren't acting 'weird'. What has not been reported in the accounts is how close to take-off the flight actually was, as this could have transpired anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour prior to the closing of the doors.
Undoubtedly, the orthodox practice of praying the Amidah, which means 'standing prayer' was probably an unfamiliar act to the crew involved, one must wonder if an Irish Roman Catholic priest standing in the back of the plane reciting the rosary would have been interrupted. There is a good description of the Amidah here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/amidah.html
Have we become so intolerant that we can not accommodate the simplest of requests? Has religion become such an 'anti-social' politically incorrect behavior as to be banished from public sight? Or has fear become the overriding concern in this post 9/11 era. Has the herd mentality become so predominant that we viciously attack anything that is different? I participated in an online chat last night on this very subject and there seemed to be three predominant schools of thought.
1. The guy was a religious nut forcing his religion on everyone else, that he did this on purpose to either make a statement or force the airline to remove him in order to pursue legal action. And that religious expression has no place on an airplane or in any public place.
2. That everyone must follow the rules, no matter what, and that in this post 9/11 world blind obedience is a prerequisite to order. That even if singled out, one must comply for the sake of the public good. I suppose, by that logic, that we ought to resume payment of the tea tax to the British.
3. That the airline and/or the crew were completely wrong, that the man was out of the way, harming no one, and that the crew had been told he would be done in 1 or 2 minutes. They were on a power trip, forcing this poor man to comply for nothing more than their own egos.
I would venture that the man's activities were unfamiliar to the crew involved and made them nervous. Not sure of what he was doing or why, they requested the man take his seat, and when he did not comply it turned into something of a 'power' issue for them. I find it odd that the crew summoned a customer service agent to remover the man, and not the Port Authority or TSA. If he was such a risk, and this was such a significant incident the airline was derelict in it's duty by not involving the proper authorities.
Of curious note, this is not the first time that this has happened. This also occurred on 1 September 2006 when Air Canada removed a Hasidic Jew began praying in his seat while rocking back and forth, an activity called ’shokeling’, as the plane began its roll out to the runway. The flight attendant told him that he was making the other passengers nervous and would have to leave, and had the gall to announce to the other passengers 'that it was all right, he wasn't Muslim'. The airlines response was to offer crews 'sensitivity training'.
The evolving issue in Texas is also of some concern, the latest seems to be that the phone call prompting the raid was the result of a 'hoax' phone call from a woman in Colorado. I haven't seen it in the national news, but the local Colorado news is reporting that the call was actually traced to the woman by the FBI. Regardless of our personal feelings on the religious beliefs of these people, I am astounded that the authorities rounded up all the children from the 'ranch' which is larger in population than many Texas towns. I could understand removing the children from the household of the alleged threat, but imagine if the police in your town received an anonymous call about abuse... would they round up everyone in the neighborhood if they could not determine which house it was occurring in?
What is most disturbing is how the public at large readily accepts such incidents and the official explanations for them at face value. What would our founding fathers have to say? The state psychiatrist Dr Bruce Perry testified that " the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth." Well DUH? Can't that be said of anyone? Is not the fact that good Catholic, or Jewish, or Amish girls marry within their faith due to lessons drilled into them from birth. As long as the girls are over 16 and marry with the consent of their parents Dr Perry's personal beliefs are irrelevant. I am not saying that I agree with the Texas law, only that that is what it is... if the parents are okay with their 16 year olds marrying 49, 59, or even 69 year olds the states position outside the law is completely irrelevant as well. I firmly believe that any violations of Texas law should be prosecuted, but that outside the law the personal beliefs of the sheriff, social workers, or any expert witnesses they care to produce are meaningless.
One must question what the underlying motivations of the authorities in Texas are... are they really concerned about the children, or is this a convenient time and excuse to rid their community of an embarrassment, a religious community that exists in violation of their own beliefs? As one must question the motives of the airline in removing the praying man from he plane. I was amazed at how often people quoted Matthew 6:6 'that condemns people who pray only so that people might see them do so', in association with this incident. It would be funny if they weren't so darn serious, really... quoting the New Testament as an example of behavior for a Jew to follow. Are we so narrow minded?
It is amazing how willing we are give up our hard earned freedoms, be it for the sake of political correctness or for the false illusion of security. I heard repeatedly that while the man had the right to pray, we must give that right up in this post 9/11 world in order to obtain security. Might I offer the advice of a few of our founding fathers on this subject:
THOMAS JEFFERSON: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
JOHN ADAMS: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
JAMES MADISON: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And while he is not considered one of our founding fathers, his advice is certainly appropriate:
JUDGE GIDEON J. TUCKER: No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Just food for thought, and the advice to defend your rights and liberties vehemently and without pause.
~Finntann~
My problem here is not with removing passengers for failing to comply with flight attendants instructions, but in my frequent experience passengers often stand in the aisles or in the back of the plane for various reasons, presumably thinking that they are 'out of the way'. I have never seen a businessman on his cell phone asked to sit while standing back near the lavatories during boarding, and it is very hit or miss whether or not a person standing in the aisle talking with friends before take off will be asked to sit down, as I have been forced to squeeze past them on many occasions. This appears to me to be a selective enforcement of the rules which is a dangerous step down the road to tyranny. You can stand up so long as you look 'normal' and aren't acting 'weird'. What has not been reported in the accounts is how close to take-off the flight actually was, as this could have transpired anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour prior to the closing of the doors.
Undoubtedly, the orthodox practice of praying the Amidah, which means 'standing prayer' was probably an unfamiliar act to the crew involved, one must wonder if an Irish Roman Catholic priest standing in the back of the plane reciting the rosary would have been interrupted. There is a good description of the Amidah here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/amidah.html
Have we become so intolerant that we can not accommodate the simplest of requests? Has religion become such an 'anti-social' politically incorrect behavior as to be banished from public sight? Or has fear become the overriding concern in this post 9/11 era. Has the herd mentality become so predominant that we viciously attack anything that is different? I participated in an online chat last night on this very subject and there seemed to be three predominant schools of thought.
1. The guy was a religious nut forcing his religion on everyone else, that he did this on purpose to either make a statement or force the airline to remove him in order to pursue legal action. And that religious expression has no place on an airplane or in any public place.
2. That everyone must follow the rules, no matter what, and that in this post 9/11 world blind obedience is a prerequisite to order. That even if singled out, one must comply for the sake of the public good. I suppose, by that logic, that we ought to resume payment of the tea tax to the British.
3. That the airline and/or the crew were completely wrong, that the man was out of the way, harming no one, and that the crew had been told he would be done in 1 or 2 minutes. They were on a power trip, forcing this poor man to comply for nothing more than their own egos.
I would venture that the man's activities were unfamiliar to the crew involved and made them nervous. Not sure of what he was doing or why, they requested the man take his seat, and when he did not comply it turned into something of a 'power' issue for them. I find it odd that the crew summoned a customer service agent to remover the man, and not the Port Authority or TSA. If he was such a risk, and this was such a significant incident the airline was derelict in it's duty by not involving the proper authorities.
Of curious note, this is not the first time that this has happened. This also occurred on 1 September 2006 when Air Canada removed a Hasidic Jew began praying in his seat while rocking back and forth, an activity called ’shokeling’, as the plane began its roll out to the runway. The flight attendant told him that he was making the other passengers nervous and would have to leave, and had the gall to announce to the other passengers 'that it was all right, he wasn't Muslim'. The airlines response was to offer crews 'sensitivity training'.
The evolving issue in Texas is also of some concern, the latest seems to be that the phone call prompting the raid was the result of a 'hoax' phone call from a woman in Colorado. I haven't seen it in the national news, but the local Colorado news is reporting that the call was actually traced to the woman by the FBI. Regardless of our personal feelings on the religious beliefs of these people, I am astounded that the authorities rounded up all the children from the 'ranch' which is larger in population than many Texas towns. I could understand removing the children from the household of the alleged threat, but imagine if the police in your town received an anonymous call about abuse... would they round up everyone in the neighborhood if they could not determine which house it was occurring in?
What is most disturbing is how the public at large readily accepts such incidents and the official explanations for them at face value. What would our founding fathers have to say? The state psychiatrist Dr Bruce Perry testified that " the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth." Well DUH? Can't that be said of anyone? Is not the fact that good Catholic, or Jewish, or Amish girls marry within their faith due to lessons drilled into them from birth. As long as the girls are over 16 and marry with the consent of their parents Dr Perry's personal beliefs are irrelevant. I am not saying that I agree with the Texas law, only that that is what it is... if the parents are okay with their 16 year olds marrying 49, 59, or even 69 year olds the states position outside the law is completely irrelevant as well. I firmly believe that any violations of Texas law should be prosecuted, but that outside the law the personal beliefs of the sheriff, social workers, or any expert witnesses they care to produce are meaningless.
One must question what the underlying motivations of the authorities in Texas are... are they really concerned about the children, or is this a convenient time and excuse to rid their community of an embarrassment, a religious community that exists in violation of their own beliefs? As one must question the motives of the airline in removing the praying man from he plane. I was amazed at how often people quoted Matthew 6:6 'that condemns people who pray only so that people might see them do so', in association with this incident. It would be funny if they weren't so darn serious, really... quoting the New Testament as an example of behavior for a Jew to follow. Are we so narrow minded?
It is amazing how willing we are give up our hard earned freedoms, be it for the sake of political correctness or for the false illusion of security. I heard repeatedly that while the man had the right to pray, we must give that right up in this post 9/11 world in order to obtain security. Might I offer the advice of a few of our founding fathers on this subject:
THOMAS JEFFERSON: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
JOHN ADAMS: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
JAMES MADISON: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And while he is not considered one of our founding fathers, his advice is certainly appropriate:
JUDGE GIDEON J. TUCKER: No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Just food for thought, and the advice to defend your rights and liberties vehemently and without pause.
~Finntann~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
