Member sanctioned

[sturob]

The idea that they spoke English better than we do is ridiculous, James, much as the idea that the English speak it better than we do. They're just dialects. The "founding fathers" spoke a language that was different from anything spoken today; it's a mistake to assume otherwise.

To wit, cf. middle English. A lot of people read Chaucer in the "original" middle English and think they understand it. A lot of middle English words are antonyms of their cognate modern English counterparts.

And I think we must agree that Gordon's point about original intent is correct: if we were following the spirit of the documents, women would not have suffrage, and only white males would be full citizens of our republic. We've had to make a lot of changes to fit with our evolving notions of equality and justice. Sure, they did mean to establish a representative republic under the idea that "all Men are created Equal," but we've come a long way in redefining what is meant by Men and Equal. Also, vis-à-vis the 2nd Amendment, remember the context: they were very concerned about balancing the strength of the central government with a populus-cum-militia which could retake the government should the need arise. They didn't need to write it that way, as you suggest, because at the time the document existed within the context of the recent war of independence. It is only somewhat-misguided modern American wishful thinking, in my opinion, which has turned what are practical documents into some kind of irrefutible, uninterpretable canon. Language is a means of communication, and by definition must be interpreted: we simply differ on the parameters.

But again, we digress.

Stuart

[jim stone]

Gordon, I take your point, but if read my post again and what led up to it, I'm not saying anything about later interpretation.

I'm saying that claiming the founding fathers meant the 2nd amendment to mean that we should have armed militias, and not armed citizentry, is in error. If that had meant that, they were certainly capable of writing it that way, but they didn't: for better or for worse, they felt an armed citizenry was desirable.

As for later interpretation, that is a different issue entirely. What I am talking about is their original intent, which is really not subject to interpretation, not if we remain honest. They didn't speak a different language: they spoke our English, somewhat better than we do.

--James

Again I think James has got it right. As to the 'Doctrine of 'orginal intent,''
I have the impressions that this may be a straw man.

Law, everybody agrees, is a matter of applying law to unforessen
circumstances. In doing this in a principled way, it's helpful
to find the principle at the core of the law, and to do that
it can be helpful to find out, if one can, the intentions
of the people who wrote and ratified it.

So, for example, it's plain that protecting black people was
especially on the mind of people who framed and ratified
the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and this
has affected current Court decisions in that they
subject race-based statutes that might disadvantage
black people to heightened scrutiny. As I understand it,
this is the doctrine of original intent, and it's hardly
unreasonable.

But some critics seem to have taken the doctrine to
mean that we can't interpret law at all, which would
make it silly, and the alternative they offer
is really that most everything goes, and that
is worse than silly.

But maybe I'm mistaken about this, and I'd be
grateful if somebody could tell me where this
doctrine of original intent is stated by conservative
jurists in this silly and objectionable form.

James really has the second amendment right,
i think, and the alternative isn't to 'interpret' it
so that it doesn't give the right to bear
arms to you and me, but to amend or repeal it.
Possibly the Bill of Rights is defective in
this respect.

The Constitution isn't a living document, in the sense
that the principles on which it's based are changing.
They're not.
It's alive in the less tendentious
sense that it can often be applied in terms of
those principles to circumstnaces the framers
never anticiapated. But when it can't go even
that far, and needs to, or conditions have changed
so drastically that the Constittuion is out of sync
with the times, the tried and true solution isn't
to reinterpret it very broadly, or maintain that
people who say it still means what it did
take it too narrowly, but to amend it. Best

[Nanohedron]

Ah. A thread drift gone political on the flute forum. How novel and refreshing!

Take care, Jessie, and do consider the advice given you.

[jim stone]

It beats what we were first talking about.

I'm really saddened to hear that Herbi, who has
always struck me as a voice of reason and
intelligence, and well informed, has received harassing e mails.
I've received some PMs of this sort from
a single unfortunate individual, but as there
was nothing to fear, I finally ignored them.
Sometimes these people want to prevent
ideas with which they disagree from
being expressed.

It's a pity, isn't it? This seems to actually
be a problem of sorts, not just a fluke. Well, I suppose the first line of response is
to ignore them. Unless there's
a threat that it's skilful to take
seriously. Best to all

[Nanohedron]

It beats what we were first talking about.

Point taken.

Now Herbi's getting flak, too? Cripes.

[Wombat]

It beats what we were first talking about.

I'm really saddened to hear that Herbi, who has
always struck me as a voice of reason and
intelligence, and well informed, has received harassing e mails.
I've received some PMs of this sort from
a single unfortunate individual, but as there
was nothing to fear, I finally ignored them.
Sometimes these people want to prevent
ideas with which they disagree from
being expressed.

It's a pity, isn't it? This seems to actually
be a problem of sorts, not just a fluke. Well, I suppose the first line of response is
to ignore them. Unless there's
a threat that it's skilful to take
seriously. Best to all

For reasons that seem to me obvious, I think we ought to pursue the reflecton on the issues raised in passing here for separate threads. Threats are, or can be, serious. We alll know how the internet can distort and amplify messages. We have no idea what is going through the mind of the the individual whose action initiated it. In a real sense, this is his or her thread. Who knows what comment might inflame the situation?

Everything that has been discussed here incidental to the incident and the response could have been discussed on an independent thread.

Now why isn't this obvious to others? I'm not advocating censorship, not even self-censorship, just a little common sense in where and how we post. One of the really bizarre things about our community is that the best way to keep a thread alive indefinitely is to ask people not to post to it.

[Lorenzo]

About MMD...if what Dale's saying is true, MMD is not likely to return to try and justify himself. If he changes his identity and returns, I don't understand what there is in the tone of his one and only post that could help us identify him so we could help make him feel unwelcome.

About herbivore...I'd like to know who did that to him. I remember the post he so kindly edited (removed) for someone else's sake. I don't understand how herbivore could be so lucky as to be targeted by what must have surely been some christian right-wing extremist. I leave my email open on the forum all the time, and my legal name appears when you simply click the box, and I've never been so lucky. I've had a few christian people email me about similar issues, wanting to be of help for this poor lost soul, but no threats, and nothing I couldn't easily handle. They simply disappeared when they realized I was actually in a position to also help them, and didn't like that. herbivore was in an even better postion to help them. Maybe that's it. Because he knows more, they felt more threatened and needed to put a stop to his insights, for their own pride and protection, so they returned their best threats for his threatening knowledge. Pretty cheap.

I just went back and reread that thread called "On Moral Action." I could only identify 3 posters and possibly a 4th who appeared so self-righteous that they would do that to herbivore. Funny thing, I've gotten emails or PMs from all four of these guys (I wonder if it was a lady) and I've never found any of them threatening at all. They know who they are. That thread never got locked, and I wish they'd open it back up and explain themselves and why they did what they did to herbivore.

[Wombat]

I just went back and reread that thread called "On Moral Action." I could only identify 3 posters and possibly a 4th who appeared so self-righteous that they would do that to herbivore. Funny thing, I've gotten emails or PMs from all four of these guys (I wonder if it was a lady) and I've never found any of them threatening at all. They know who they are. That thread never got locked, and I wish they'd open it back up and explain themselves and why they did what they did to herbivore.

We can't be sure it was a member here. The culprit might simply have been a lurker, or a friend of a member, or someone from another board who'd heard indirectly about the candour of discussions here .... or ...

[jim stone]

Would hate to be tried by a jury with you on it, old man.
Maybe this sort of specualtion isn't so helpful?

Checking my PMs, Dale responded to my inquirty
that he guessed what he suggested here amounted
to a shunning, which he said probably goes too far.
He wrote that he was afraid he was upset
by the PM.

I don't know what a policy concerning weird
PMs would be--maybe we can discuss that,
in this venue or anther? I don't see anything
the matter with this one. By all appearances
MMD is probably gone, and the mainboard
is the place for real repercussions. FWIW.
It happened here. Best

[AaronMalcomb]

I don't have the complete writings of Thomas Jefferson at hand but I remember learning in civics and history classes in school that Jefferson (the U.S. Constitution's author) was of the opinion that government and constitutions should change every couple of generations. So by following a 217 year-old constitution we aren't really following the author's intent.

That's all I wanted to say. I can't supply anymore info if a debate ensues. Enjoy your Sunday afternoons.

Cheers,
Aaron

[Wombat]

Would hate to be tried by a jury with you on it, old man.
Maybe this sort of specualtion isn't so helpful?

You talking about me?

[glauber]

Take care, Jessie, and do consider the advice given you.

Yeah, buy more guns!

[peeplj]

Now Glauber, I don't remember anybody recommending Jessie buy a gun.

One thing I am in favor of (which is very unlikely in today's political climate) is mandatory firearms training in the school system, so that every person in society becomes competent in the use and safe handling of firearms.

The time to buy a gun is not when you feel threatened or have reason to believe you or your family is in danger. If you've waiting till then, don't buy one: you are more likely to have your own firearm turned on you than to do any good with it, assuming you don't kill yourself trying to clean or load it.

The time to buy a firearm is when you have time to attend a local firearms safety class. Take the class first, then purchase the weapon.

--James

[glauber]

Yes, that's what the founding fathers wanted.

The American Paradise: everybody carries a gun, any offense is punishable by death under a jury of one. Everybody is equally safe.

In order to achieve this vision, we need to work to make guns cheaper. At current prices, only drug dealers and the kind of people who buy wooden flutes can afford to buy small and powerful concealable handguns. We need research in new materials and more efficient production techniques, to make entry-level handguns as accessible as the pennywhistle.

Some use should be made of the school system, too. If we can teach children to drive in school, why can't we teach them to shoot too? Marksmanship classes would be offered in much the same way as driving lessons are offered today. Upon graduation, the student would be issued a handgun.

The skeptics and the liberals will say that a project in such a large scale would be prohibitively expensive, but they're not factoring in the savings in reducing the size of the courts system and getting rid of prisons, charities, and the welfare system.

The most important question is not "can we afford to do this?" but "can we afford not to do this?" One person, one handgun was clearly the vision of the founding fathers, and it's the blueprint of the American future.

[jim stone]

Right again, James. the fact is that guns are with us,
given the second amendment that isn't going to change
drastically, however much some people hate guns.
If one wants to minimize accidents, children
killed by getting ahold of improperly secured guns, etc.
the most practical and realistic way
to save lives is to vigorously promote
training people in the safe use
of firearms. The organization with probably
the most effective training programs is
the NRA which, when I was a kid
worked closely with government in
helping to minimize accidents--but then we would lose the political
football and the demon, to mix metaphors.
Part of the problem here is coming from
the NRA, too, which has allowed itself to
be politicized. Wars have their casualties,
including the culture war.

No, Wombat, of course I did't mean you! You know that, of course,
Best