|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 325 of 406:
| 
Oct 28 19:30 UTC 2000 |
Sorry, Bruce. One of the lies that your teachers told you was that the
U.S. Constitution is the final word on the law of the land. OK, it's not
a lie but a half-truth. The constitution was written by a number of smart
people over a 5 month period in 1787. Aside from some amendments, it has
been pretty much static ever since. Constitutional Law, on the other hand,
is a continously evolving body of legal precidents and opinions that have
been worked out on a case-by-case basis, day-by-day for the last two hundred
years. It has it's roots in the Constitution, but has grown rather far
from those roots. It recognizes a "Right to Privacy" that isn't in the
Constitution. It reinterprets many rights in new ways, and figures out how
to apply them to things the founding fathers never heard of.
Practically speaking, the rights you have today are the ones granted not
by the original U.S. Constitution, but by current Constitutional Law.
Whatever may or may not have been intended by the authors of the Constitution
(I personally suspect they did mean an individual right, but I'm no legal
scholar), in practical fact you have no such individual right to bear arms
right now, because the government doesn't recognize it. The Supreme Court
has always declined to overturn gun control laws on the basis of the second
amendment. Today, in the United States, you have no meaningful right to
bear arms. You do have a meaningful right to privacy, so this evolution of
Constitutional Law is not an unmixed blessing.
I gather that there is a judical movement that believes in staying closer
to the original text of the Constitution. I think they are called "Strict
Constructionists" or maybe "Strict Constitutionalists" or something like that.
Obviously even these people are going to believe that some degree of
interpretation is OK, but a smaller degree than recent courts have indulged
in. These people will tend to disapprove of things like the court-manufactured
right to privacy, and might disapprove of throwing out the second amendment.
Vote for Bush if you want this kind of viewpoint on the Supreme Court - that's
the kind of justice he has been promising to appoint.
However, don't get your hopes up for a Court that will affirm the Second
Amendment any time soon. Throwing out the current interpretation of that
amendment is easy. Agreeing one a new one is hard. Even if you get a
majority of justices who want to do so, they are going to have a really
hard time figuring out what form a Second Amendment for the 21st century
should take. This is one of the points the ACLU paage is making. If the
justification for gun control is to give the citizens an effective ability
to resist government oppression, then it seems clear that the citizens must
be given the right to own weapons that are vaguely comparable to the ones the
government could bring to bear. Where will your new court draw the line on
what kinds of weapons can be regulated in what kinds of ways? Expect a
generation of so to try to figure that one out.
Personally, I like the more flexible approach to the constitution that has
been taken in the last century. I think they've done a good job of holding
on to what is good and critical to freedom, and expanding it rather
agressively. The fact that the courts are deliberately being reluctant to
allow regulation of the Internet for the time being is a typical example of
their enlightenment. Two hundred years of experience deciding millions of
cases leads to a richer and more effective law than a five-month theoretical
committee session.
Personally, I don't feel a need for reviving the second amendment. The Courts
have said that Congress (federal and state) may decided whether or not to
regulate guns. Fine. I think that armed resistance is only useful if the
government completely loses all respect for human liberty and all
responsiveness to the public. If that happens we resist the government,
AND WE DON'T ASK THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION TO DO SO. Why in blazes do we
need armed revolutions to be legal?
I think there may be other valid reasons for gun ownership, but none of these
are critical enough to human freedom to need to be protected by Constitutional
Law. Leave it up to the legislators, and ultimately the majority of the
people.
|
scg
|
|
response 326 of 406:
|
Oct 28 21:10 UTC 2000 |
In regards to the suburban sprawl comments a few responses back, I think
there's some balance that needs to be struck. Banning all new development,
or all new development outside of currently developed areas, won't work very
well. If the population of an area is expanding, people need to live
somewhere. However, the current practice in much of the US or assuming that
land is infinite, and building an endless supply of houses on huge lots
without regard for how people will get to them isn't working etiher. It
cloggs formerly rural roads with way more cars than they can handle, and
causes people to have to drive long distances to get anywhere. Some sort of
balance needs to be struck, probably with a good recognition of the issues,
some real planning, and some strong incentives to build in a more scalable
way. Vastly shrinking the lot sizes in new developments, making neighborhoods
walkable, and within a pleasant walk of a neighborhood downtown, and linking
the neighborhoods and downtowns together with a usable public transit system,
has a very different effect than random sprawl. Likewise, putting lots of
stuff that people want to be near in a central downtown area, and giving it
very good connectivity to the public transit system, tends to make that area
really desirable, and does tend to encourage people to build up rather than
out, creating a very densely populated area and conserving lots of land. I
think I've pretty much described the Bay Area, or at least the part of it near
San Francisco, which was presumably motivated to build this way by a shortage
of available land. I've also pretty much described London, much of which was
developed before there were cars.
As far as environmental voting records go, to accept such records as an
absolute indicator involves assuming that environmental questions always have
obvious answers, and that the groups compiling the records have no other
agenda. Both of those are false assumptions, but assuming for the moment that
they aren't: If somebody has a 50% environmental voting record, it probably
wouldn't be reasonable to label them "anti-environment." Most issues will
affect a wide variety of things, including the environment. When dealing with
complex issues, which have good points and bad points, it's necessary to
decide which things that will be affected are the most important. It's
reasonable to expect that somebody can think the environment is very
important, and still think there are some other things more important, and
may thus sometimes vote against environmental issues. However, labeling
somebody with a 0% environmental voting record as "anti-environment" does seem
like a reasonable conclusion to jump to. They may not passionately hate the
environment, but they seem to be making a pretty strong statement that no
other issue is less important to them.
|
senna
|
|
response 327 of 406:
|
Oct 28 23:33 UTC 2000 |
Close to a civil war? What a ridiculous idea. Even if it *were* true, it
merely evidifies the worst stereotypes people have about gun owners. If
that's the only reason to rebel against the state, then the rebels need their
heads checked.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 328 of 406:
|
Oct 28 23:40 UTC 2000 |
Re #238: makes me grateful I voted against Mr. Reagan at every opportunity,
and re-inforces my reluctance to vote for Mr. Bush.
Re #243: Somewhere recent, but I don't remember the source, I read that the
inheritance tax is paid over time, not immediately. So it is quite possible
to use the income from a business to pay the tax, rather than liquidating
the business to pay the tax.
Re the 2nd Amendment: the ACLU is right when it says, "If indeed the
Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for
the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to
resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess
bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they,
like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to
imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms"
(http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html). I disagree with their
continuation, "Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment
gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please"
(ibid). However, few of us have the resources to obtain proper arms,
and when we need them, they'll be available from other sources. So I'll
tolerate the current situation. (Not that brave, since I can't change it.)
|
janc
|
|
response 329 of 406:
|
Oct 29 02:25 UTC 2000 |
I didn't know that estate taxes could be paid over time. That's certainly
a sensible thing to allow. Of course, if the business is just marginally
profitable, then having to carry the extra expense of paying estate tax
installments every year could still kill it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 330 of 406:
|
Oct 29 03:28 UTC 2000 |
I think it was a David Broder piece; it may have been someone else.
From what I hear, the estate tax on a marginal business *should* be
manageable. It's only the assets that would be taxable, and there is
the $675,000 exculsion, and graduated rates above that. And then there
are the liabilities of the business.
Example: Some time back, I heard an NPR piece on a family farm.
The reporter asked about the equipment in yard: plows, combines,
trucks, etc. The farmer said they were worth about a million dollars.
"But the bank owns most of it." Those loans are liabilities, reducing
the amount of estate and thus the inheritance tax.
The land would be the big asset, and the hard part is how to value it: as
farm land or as suburban lawns? I hope and expect that, for the purposes
of the inheritance tax, it would be valued as the former, not the latter.
|
mdw
|
|
response 331 of 406:
|
Oct 29 05:38 UTC 2000 |
You would probably be wrong on the last. If a land can be sold as
suburban lawns, then that's what it's worth "on the market place". Of
course, it's hard to measure that value without actually selling it, so
it's possible the IRS will instead use the figure of whatever the land
is worth for property taxes. That figure is usually less than the going
market rate, by some percentage that typically varies from county to
country. The IRS probably has a formula to correct for this.
There *is* one way around this; there's a way to sell the right to build
houses to the gov't, in exchange for which they give you a chunk of
money. You, and any future owner of that land then can't build any
houses, so it's only worth it as farmland, and hence the value remains
lower. Of course, since that also reduces the future potential property
tax base, the local gov't may have quotas or other restrictions designed
to keep all the land from going in that direction.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 332 of 406:
|
Oct 29 17:49 UTC 2000 |
You can also sell or donate a conservation easement to a non-profit charitable
501(c)3 organization (called a "land trust" or "land conservancy"). They
prefer a donation. This may be more secure than selling to the government,
where the laws may shift with the political winds. There is no limit to
lands eased by land trusts, and it similarly reduces the taxable value
of the land.
|
scg
|
|
response 333 of 406:
|
Oct 29 19:48 UTC 2000 |
Do these land trusts have some sort of escape clause, if development of
the land later becomes a good thing? If a formerly rural area were to get
completely surrounded by a growing city, it would seem kind of rediculous to
insist on keeping farms in the middle of it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 334 of 406:
|
Oct 29 22:39 UTC 2000 |
No, because federal tax donations have been allowed: there is no way
to pay-up on all those deductions. But the land that has been conservation
eased - such as that farm - can be converted to a park, which is
needed in every growing city. That is, the easement does not have to
insist that farming be continued, only that the conservation values
be preserved. It takes a lot of foresight and intelligence to write
a defensible and stable easement.
|
russ
|
|
response 335 of 406:
|
Oct 30 02:07 UTC 2000 |
Drifting back to ACLU vs. NRA, I think the problem (and yes, it IS a
problem) with the ACLU is that they refuse to consider the possibility
that things might one day get so bad that suits and injunctions will
no longer work. (I seem to recall that it once was that bad in this
nation, with someone saying something like "The court has made its
judgement; now let the court enforce it." If it was that bad once...)
If you don't have a fallback strategy for this, you're screwed. Carl's
point in #318 cannot be ignored. If the system is so corrupt that
"every cop is a criminal" (eg. Mexico), the individual RKBA is one of
a very few ways to toss the crooks out of power quickly. Trying to
wrest the RKBA back to an individual-rights interpretation after spending
several decades denying that there is any such thing would be a lot
tougher and require a much worse breakdown of authority to accomplish.
The damage resulting from the loss of public order in such a situation
would be a lot worse than any twenty David Koreshes could manage.
This is another argument for smaller government: when it breaks, there
is less of it to fix and less of society breaks down with it.
Re #310: I have no problem with background checks either, in principle.
The problem is that the systems are dishonestly implemented to try to
accomplish more than what they claim, and more than what is right.
One issue is that the gun ban^H^H^Hcontrol constituency wants these
checks to be as drawn-out as possible to try to prevent people from
buying guns (like the right-to-life strategy WRT abortions), and also
set up so that a "failure" in the system shuts down sales (like Brady);
this is unacceptable. Another is that the systems are set up to record
what is being sold (what difference does it make?), creating a back-door
registration system not authorized by the enabling laws. A third is that
a hit on the system identifies someone as being a gun buyer.
I would have no difficulty at all with a system which kept all relevant
instant-check related records (for all purposes, not just gun purchases)
on-line, and passed an encrypted version along upon request. This
database should contain prohibitions relating to guns, driving, substances,
restraining orders, and everything else. The terminal used to perform the
checks would only have the key to decrypt the part of the record relevant
to the check being performed, and would communicate with the servers via
an anonymizing network. In other words, the police agencies would not
know why the records were being accessed. This would protect the privacy
of buyers, would-be employees, and everyone else involved in purchases,
employment, and any other transactions. It would also prevent the abuses
that arms-rights advocates have warned of (and sometimes documented).
Since I don't believe for a minute that the gun-confiscationists would
allow the implementation of a system with sufficient safeguards to prevent
the collection of unauthorized data or the abuse of the rest, I am opposed
to background checks. They are useless, as shown by the fact that criminals
by the thousands get around them easily. They're a proven waste of money
and law-enforcement resources. Get rid of them.
|
polygon
|
|
response 336 of 406:
|
Oct 30 05:36 UTC 2000 |
Janc: "Two hundred years of experience deciding millions of cases leads to
a richer and more effective law than a five-month theoretical committee
session."
Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The life of the law has not been logic: it has
been experience."
|
bru
|
|
response 337 of 406:
|
Oct 30 12:43 UTC 2000 |
Janc, if you let the law change based on whim, then we are all screwed.
Interpretation of the law can cchanged based on what ones defenition of "is"
is.
And constitutional law does not "grant" us any rights. Rights come before
law, they have been here since before this country was founded. The
Constitution recognized that as a fact, and if we start granting rights based
on our interpretations, or taking them away, then all is lost.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 338 of 406:
|
Oct 30 17:53 UTC 2000 |
Oh, come on. People had to think up all "rights" for the purpose of
composing a more civilized society. Until people did that, there were
no "rights" - just mammals making a life as they went (though they
invented "rights" fast enough, I would expect). Where do "rights" come
from, if not from the mind of man?
The framers of the Constitution wrote down those "rights" based on their
history, experiences, and hopes. If you want, all was "lost" *before* people
invented rights.
|
danr
|
|
response 339 of 406:
|
Oct 30 18:07 UTC 2000 |
Indeed. Anytime anyone reads and thinks about what's in the Constitution (or
the Bible, for that matter) they're interpreting it. Situations change, and
while the guys who wrote the Constitution were smart guys, they still were just
guys, not gods. So, even were it possible to never interpret the Constitution,
it wouldn't be desireable.
|
brighn
|
|
response 340 of 406:
|
Oct 30 18:12 UTC 2000 |
Heretic! I've seen Washington's Monument. It's huge! Do you think we'd've
built something like that for a mere mortal?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 341 of 406:
|
Oct 30 18:44 UTC 2000 |
We got the idea from the Egytians.
|
brighn
|
|
response 342 of 406:
|
Oct 30 18:50 UTC 2000 |
See? My point exactly. They didn't build such things for mere mortals. They
built them for Pharoahs, whhich they saw as Gods Incarnate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 343 of 406:
|
Oct 30 18:56 UTC 2000 |
But WE don't have even a trace left of thinking the Egyptian Pharoahs
were gods - look how we muck around with their mummies. You would think
the Native Egyptians would object and ask for them back to rebury. All
we got from the Egyptians was the idea to BUILD BIG STUFF.
|
brighn
|
|
response 344 of 406:
|
Oct 30 19:06 UTC 2000 |
well, them and the French
|
rcurl
|
|
response 345 of 406:
|
Oct 30 19:15 UTC 2000 |
Good point. Is the Washington Monument higher than the Eiffel Tower? And,
if not, why not?
|
brighn
|
|
response 346 of 406:
|
Oct 30 19:20 UTC 2000 |
The CN Tower's the tallest. Them lousy Canucks.
|
jp2
|
|
response 347 of 406:
|
Oct 31 02:29 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
i
|
|
response 348 of 406:
|
Oct 31 04:53 UTC 2000 |
Re: #335. The ACLU has limited resources, and gun rights doen't seem to
lack for defenders. Beyond passing your personal hot-button litmus test,
is there any reason for them to commit more resources to this issue than
the NRA commits to early detection of extra-terrestrial invasion?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 349 of 406:
|
Oct 31 09:33 UTC 2000 |
You know the problem I have with the 'gun control' advocates? Its
simple, 'gun control' doesn't work. It simply doesn't work. Chicago
has had lots and lots of 'gun control' laws for over a quarter century.
And you know what? Criminals don't obey the law. Thats what makes them
criminals! Duh! I live in the south side of chicago, an area that for
well over a century has not exactly been noted for being peaceful and
quiet.
I gave away my guns, gave up a nice relaxing hobby when I moved here -
punching holes in defensless pieces of paper - and teaching women how to
defend themselves potentially against bigger stronger threats. Fine, I
rely on hickory or oak axe handles and if I get really mad arms which
predate firearms (and are probably technically illegal as well - a
42-inch samurai sword probably exceeds the blade limit on 'pocket knife'
the couple of times I have chased a bad guy with one and respectfully
(and thankfully) the various chigagoland police departments sure ignored
my transgressions on those occasions (which they are not stupid, they
knew full well what I 'packed').
As for firearms, even the local newspapers when they do an "expose'"
over 'gang warfare' (not LCN but street gangs) can come up with an
'arsenal' no more deadly than a couple revolvers and a couple rifles of
design over a century ago - no UZIs, no AK47s - and all with limited
ammunition. Oh, sure your organized LCN types may dream of having an
UZI, or an 'K' but that is dreams, in reality...., think of the 'mob
hits' you read about, these days it is subsonic .22 with a silencer, not
a machine gun - or in chicagoland a 'car bomb'. You don't get mob guys
shooting up the street with machine guns. And in the few (three) times
where you might see a hint of 'automatic weapon's, it is 'churches' that
are mentioned (waco wackos, even if it were suspect as it is).
When the police do a 'gun buy back' what do they get?
Sophisticated and expensive modern weapons? No, they get 'cheap'
'saturday night specials' - and a vintage 19th century Colt museum piece
thrown in that is worth 50-100K$US or more, but those 'disappear' into
who's ever hands they were lucky enough to notice. When the 'innocent
citizen' prevents a crime and makes the news what kind of firearm is he
or she armed with? A "K"? An "UZI"? An 900$US S&W? No, he or she is
armed with a cheap 'saturday night special' which is all he or she can
afford and which incidently does the trick rather well for its cost.
All the more reason *not* to ban 'saturday might specials' - doing so
descriminates against the poor and honest citizens.
I used to own a 'saturday night special', a brazilian 'knock off' of the
S&W .38 'police chief special', nickle finish (stain and finger print
resistant- oh yeah, they've had those for decades - you didn't want to
spoil the finish of the gun). That Taurus, now on the banned list I am
told was a really good deal at less than 100$US imported even with lots
of markup. You could even load 5 .357 cut back custom loads instead for
better stopping power. ;hammerless' - thus not to get caught if you had
to put it into action while drawing it from a pocket - or a purse. It
was the prefered weapon of the Philadelphia PD 'undercover' and
'detectives' branches - if you shot some mope you just substitued spend
.38 shell casings. I never figured that one out, the USARMY developed
the .45 to perform better against the Moro bad guys in the philipines
almost a century ago, better than the .38 but restricted domestic police
for so long- to this day in fact the FBI with its 10mm are better armed
but do so less good than many police departments (and take credit for
same). Thank goodness the poorly trained police now 'pack' 9's with
14 shots instead of six to substitute for poor marksmanship and
training.
Crime is down, murders are down, more restrictive 'gun control' laws
have nothing to do with it. Clinton/Gore has nothing to do with it. The
Brady Bill has nothing to do with it. The NRA has nothing to do with it
nor probably do 'carry laws' in some states although they may have an
inpact of the measured increase of the decrease and may have had an
effect on the initial increase were they then in place. The reduction
in crime is simply a result of the decreased population of criminals.
Nothing more, nothing less. (and some would suggest that Roe-v-Wade had
a significant impact on the number of criminals as well) Its called
'population demographics'. Criminals prey on the helpless, the extent
you are not, the extent you are not a victim.
Politicians prey on the gullible, 'the sky will fall' if bush/gore is
elected...Pick your poison, I am tempted to vote for Nader me self
(shocking as it might be, me being a registered republican who votes for
mostly democrats these days....) ( I hate 'big government' with a
passion.) I have no idea who whats-her-name will vote for, I think she
is gonna vote for Bush as she is a Texas Democrat...
go figure.
|