A teacher I know got a cheque for $5500 in the mail from the school board the other day. Why?
Because she hadn’t been sick in a few years. Part of her union negotiated contract was that she gets X sick days per year. She never used them, so the school board was obligated to give her EXTRA MONEY for the value of the days she didn’t take off work.
They gave her a bonus because she went to work. Incredible.
Ontario will be in credit trouble within the next 4 years. Mark my words.
Soo much misinformation in this entire thread - where to begin??
I’ll start with Sak’s comment. Americans most certainly have a tradition of respecting the second amendment, and it is highly likely that tradition has been passed down through the generations. Outside of the apparent “problem” that this creates (which I don’t buy into) so what? A traditional respect for the 2nd amendment doesn’t say anything about the text of the amendment, or, more importantly, how it should be interpreted.
So let’s go to the text. The 2nd amendment 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.”
Interestingly, it took over two centuries for the US Supreme Court to actually decide the age-old question of whether the second amendment protects an “individual right” to bear arms, or whether the amendment only protected militias to organize and arm themselves. You can see the obvious implications: choose the latter, and you essentially gut the 2nd amendment from the constitution, as no one would argue that there are significant militias alive and well in this country. They died off centuries ago. But adopt the former rationale, and you have a constitutional right to own a handgun that is every bit as valid as our sacred right of free speech anchored in the first amendment.
Now I’m a bit of a constitutional law nerd, but I won’t bore you with the details. In short, Justice Scalia’s heroic opinion (joined by four other justies) in D.C. v. Heller held that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms according to the original public meaning of amendment at the time it was enacted. (As an aside, originalism is the ONLY proper method of constitutional interpretation. Scalia was on his A-game in this case.)
I’ll quote his final paragraph, because it is so eloquently written:
We are aware of the handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
The whole opinion is here (including the various dissents): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
My point is that it while it may be fun to lodge rhetorical attacks about a nation full of morons armed with guns (a premise to which I do not subscribe), that is still a discussion far ahead of itself.
The bottom line is that we have a Constitution, and in that Constitution are rights guaranteed to all Americans, ranging from free speech, lawful gun ownership, the right not to incriminate yourself, the right to trial by jury, and the right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures, inter alia.
THAT is the starting point for any debates. It is a GIVEN that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to lawful gun ownership. From that point, you can start arguing policy and propose certain laws and regulations that would supposedly cut down on unnecessary gun violence. But keep in mind that those very policy proposals are nonetheless subject to the Second Amendment. Just as in restrictions on free speech, a proposal to limit a 2nd amendment right in some way will be subject to the “strict scrutiny” test (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) when challenged in court. And as proposed limits on free speech nearly always fail strict scrutiny under the 1st Amendment, expect the same for the 2d Amendment.
Wow, this has gone on longer than I expected. But I’ll follow up with more thoughts on the actual statistics of gun violence. Hopefully soon.
Anyway, just wanted to make sure the debate is framed in the proper context. I quite like my Constitution - well, at least the parts that haven’t been ripped to shreds yet by certain loathsome justices over the past 85 years. But I digress . . .
There is a reason why it’s the second, and not the 10th.
If we started applying some of the same logic applied here to the first amendment, I think you would recognize the insanity.
“Free speech is so antiquated. It’s not like we have printing presses anymore, the Internet has freed us.”
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am not debating the legality or validity of zimmerman or whomever having a handgun (or 9). I’m simply examining why so many people die in America at the barrel of a gun, and the absurdity of saying “we can solve this with more guns”. The opinion/ruling you posted was interesting. What he wanted to say was ‘let congress eliminate the right to bear arms from the constitution… and until then let’s not make any waves’. Beneath that you could feel him wanting to say that something needs to be done. In any event the text of the second is definitely antiquated, and again, refers not to modern times, but refers to the early Americans wanting their own way of life, including the right to defend themselves from an oppressive government aka the Brits.
Seatbelt laws used to describe only lap belts. Then shoulder belts came along and Seatbelt laws had to evolve. So too should the 2nd.
It’s true what I said though. It is a nation full of morons (moronic with respect to guns). Someone with extensive training and a great respect for a gun’s power is not a moron. Unfortunately that is not a requirement to obtain a gun in America. Or to use one. Or to put yourself in situations where you may need to use one with lethal results. A signature and a couple of pieces of ID is all that many Americans require to obtain a gun. Therein lies the problem.
Access and ignorance equals deaths that in many cases were destined to be arguments, fistfights or knife fights.
We should limit who can write and talk aloud about their opinions.
There are so many morons with voices that we should silence.
You cannot cherry pick your favorite amendments and apply progressive thinking without committing serious error.
The founders wanted every law abiding citizen to have the right to bear arms. Who are you to deem competent? Wake up, the government cannot figure out health care let alone gun control.
The fundamental thing that people also need to realize is that the 2nd amendment is about personal defense from tyranny by your neighbor or criminals. Just because your iq is lower than average shouldn’t eliminate your right to defend yourself.
^^ um, was that directed at me? Lol - if so, you severely misread what I wrote. I gave a brief legal analysis. They don’t come more right-wing libertarian than me, bro. I can promise you that 
Saki
Words don’t typically kill anyone, and if they do (incite violence), then that individual can indeed be legally silenced.
Anyway, the Americans who claim there’s nothing wrong with guns in their country are either pretty blind to the hard numbers or just selfish and don’t mind innocent people losing their lives just so that they can keep their guns.
Meh, in the end I don’t live there and I sure am glad about that. It’s a screwed up country in terms of politics where it’s painfully obvious most politicians aren’t working to improve their own nation’s issues (cough congress cough senate). Let them kill themselves. It’s just a pity innocents have to die along the way. (I just wish less guns made it across the border into mine).
I am pretty sure words have killed more people in the history of mankind than anything else. We just use cannons or guns, nukes whatever, to get the job done.
That is besides the point that I am trying to convey. People against the 2nd amendment conveniently try and limit the definition to conform to their liking. But if we were to apply the same logic, or behavior, to another amendment (like the first amendment) – their would be war (which you would need guns to accomplish).
double post
To clarify:
It was directed at Saki, but it obviously wasn’t personal.
I was drawing an analogy of applying amendment changes from one amendment to another. Basically a pepsi challenge experiment. Take both the 1st and 2nd amendments, flip the language by stripping the subject lines, but impose the objective – people would understand the attack that people feel is happening with their right to gun ownership.
Edit, why am I getting negative Karma for entering into the Trayvon discussion? That is chicken shit whoever is doing that.
Exactly our point. If knives and clubs, etc. were used “to get the job done”, we wouldn’t have as many fatalities.
Thanks for confirming what we’re saying.
Again, kill yourselves all you want, just try and keep it contained. The gun spill-over into my neck of the woods is a PITA.
Maybe you got negative karma from something else? I can’t see anyone caring enough about this to -ve you
My point was that the 1st amendment should be tested by the country, and should evolve if necessary. Just as the 2nd should. All law. Happens everywhere.
Hell your rights and freedoms are very publicly being eliminated right now with no discussion or input from the country.
That’s ok, they’ll have their guns to fend off the government when they realise the “land of the free” isn’t quite so “free”. :
Don’t worry, you’re not the only one. I seem to have lost one as well. That said…ask me if I care
No shit! Unreal the amount of things that get glazed over by the media these days, and then stories like this (while horrible, still happen every week) become frontline national news for months while real nationwide issues are brushed under the rug. Although, the amount of people that rely on comical satire news shows as their sole source of information is almost scarier than anything else to me, especially when I realize those same people have the right to vote.
Back on topic.
Here are the facts clearly laid out:
Another thing that is also of importance. When George was being interrogated by the police, one officer lied to him and said that their were surveillance cameras and the whole thing was caught on tape. Guess what his reaction was? “Oh thank God!”
Sounds good. Then just don’t come knocking next time your government needs a pistol or black rifle, because we and Europe basically manufacturer the weapons for peace.
People just don’t seem to understand the way our government was set up. The 2nd amendment gives the people the power to overthrow the government when deemed necessary…I fear that time is approaching soon. Government is getting far too big and far too corrupt and with bankruptcy looming on the horizon this is one of the most powerful amendments we have. “the second protects the first” and boy is that quote ever so true. You anti-gunners always attempt to point to the fact that the writing and intention of it is outdated. Well the supreme court disagrees and so do I. As someone else pointed out…if the 2A is outdated then computers, internet, and ballpoint pens should also be eradicated. Do you think the founding fathers would have envisioned such tools the government can use to spy on us? I’m sorry you feel that way about the American constitution but the majority does not. Your reference is one with no merit and is quite the outrageous assumption to say the least.
The gun violence in this country stems from the ghettos and very low income areas for the most part. Most of those convicted of the crime were convicted felons in the past. More so, many of them did not buy the gun in a gun store, rather they purchased it off the street from another felon or stole it. Meaning they acquired the firearm illegally. Don’t believe me? Read John Lott’s book titled “more guns less crime”. He is one of the leading researchers on gun crime and violence in America. How effective are the gun free zones in America? Well since 1950 every mass shooting with the exception of Giffords in 2009 has occurred in a gun free zone. Mag cap bans? Not a problem for criminals. The Columbine shooters had 13 ten round mags and were still able to get close to 100 rounds off. These bans have also been proven to do nothing in the wake of mass shootings. All the proposed laws are simply “feel good” laws with no real purpose to stop the illegal shootings and murders. Simply politics.
As I understand with Canadian laws, you can have a gun within your place of residence but even if an armed intruder were to break in and threaten you, once you fire that gun you are the one going to jail. Correct me if I am wrong as I do not know much of Canadian law at all. But in effect that is similar to what many of our liberal states here have in the way of laws. You guys may have ghettos but they do not amount to the intensity and sheer numbers we have here.
I just wonder why some of you are ok with being victimized? If an intruder breaks into your home or is forcefully trying to take your money you are ok with that? At some point criminals need to know that it’s not ok and people will be willing to stand up to them. Yes, we have a gun violence problem here but we also have a constitution and within it a bill of rights that precedes any social problem we face. Attacking gun ownership is not the place to begin. Education, research, the war on drugs, and dismantling gangs and ghettos is a place to start. As it is I think we have a large amount of gun restrictive laws that violate the 2nd amendment.
More so I love my shooting sports and hate it when these laws get in the way of them…but what I hate more is the politics that arise and give way to politicians moving to create “feel good” laws…very very few laws I agree with in regards to restrictions
If my government needs armament for the varying law enforcement/military divisions then that’s fine. They have a job to do and there’s a process in place to keep them in check (albeit not good enough in my view but that’s another conversation altogether amongs us Canadians). Why are you crossing over to government use? This conversation is about civilian use. Weird tangent…