An interesting question...

[DZComposer]

Philosoraptor raises an interesting question. Many people support trampling the 4th amendment in the name of "saving lives." Protest while pointing at the 4th amendment, and they call you soft on terror. Yet, they go nuts in opposition when you propose gun control laws for the same reason, citing the 2nd amendment, yet they're NOT soft on crime.

Anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

This isn't so much a discussion about gun control as it is about the constitution. These people claim to follow it, yet unless it is an incomplete selection of Article I, §8 or the 2nd amendment it seems to be perfectly acceptable to these people to violate it. I'm not saying the left is immune to it, but to me it seems that the left are usually the ones standing up for civil liberties.

[ballisticwaffles]

well, i do suppose its Hypocracy, mixed with a little personal agenda, stirred with a hint of idiocy and served with a side of bullsh#t. Its hypocracy for obvius reasons, Their own conflicting beliefs either a sign of obfuscating idiocy or mental instability. Their own personal agenda would call for the availability of guns, but not the right of privacy. Adn to top it all of, the also claim to support the constitution while activly using it as toilet paper as they... my apologies, im ranting. The point is it depend on the person and their willingness to play to either the extream right, or the extream left.

[Sabre]

Hyporacy, maybe. However, this assumes that these amendments are sacred. Just because they are part of the same document doesnt mean they are both valid. If it was amended (for sake of argument) that everyone should wear cowboy hats, would you defend it by saying "But 4 is a good idea, therefore so is enforced cowboy hat wearing."

[DZComposer]

The first 10 amendments of the US constitution actually are sacred. So sacred they have their own name: The Bill of Rights. They are what makes the US different from many other countries around the world in the rights that they grant to citizens. Things like the government can't put you in jail for criticizing it, they can't force your to say you committed a crime, they can't force you to quarter soldiers in your home, they can't censor the press, they can't force you to go to a specific church nor tell you you can't go to one. Among other things. They are the legal foundation of the freedoms that we Americans love to talk about so much.

Also, the US constitution is the supreme law of the United States. It's primary function is setting up the basic structure of the US government and also setting some rules that the government must follow, including things the federal government explicitly can do, things that it is implied the federal government can do, and some very clear statements of what the government CANNOT do, namely in the Bill of Rights.

Give them a read. They're very short and to the point, and not full of legalese: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends

Also, amending it is very difficult. Congress can't simply pass a law that changes it. Congress can start the process, but it involves huge majorities, as well as the governments of the majority of the states to agree to it. There have been many, many attempts, but only 27 have made it through the process, 10 of them right at the document's signing (most states refused to ratify a constitution without a Bill of Rights).

Only one bullshit amendment ever got through, the 18th. It banned the sale, distribution, and possession of alcohol. It is also the only amendment ever repealed (by the 21st).

[Sabre]

Interesting, but proves that it isnt sacred. They added a no liquor bit, then got rid of it. They also bang on about freedom while slavery is in effect. And lastly, part 14 about citizenship can seemingly be casually ignored today. (America has a bit of a reputation for being racist/xenophobic) Also, if I recall right, alot of americans are against guns?

It's a noble idea, but a flawed one. Much like the bible, people just pick and choose the bits they like.

[DZComposer]

Except amendments past 10 aren't the bill of rights. Not that Nos. 11-27 aren't important, but they aren't the truly sacred ones.

I'm not saying US History is full of shining example of how to follow principles of freedom for the less fortunate or different. Our history is full of situations where those that are different and viewed as lesser people. US treatment of the native tribes, Slavery, the internment of the Japanese, etc.  But there has been progress. Slow progress, but still progress.

Slavery was a very thorny issue in this country. Many of the country's wealthy at the time amassed their wealth on the back of slave labor, and they were not willing to give that up. Abraham Lincoln's anti-slavery views were a large reason why the US had a civil war.

Most of the people who support gun control don't support fully banning them. Of course the NRA loves to say that those in favor of gun control do want to ban them, but the NRA has its own agenda and that agenda is to help the gun industry sell as many guns as possible. The second amendment is quite vague. The only thing clear about it is that guns can't be banned. The original draft of it actually prevented the US from having a standing army in times of peace, but allowed for the citizenry to have, and know how to use, weapons in case they needed to form a militia and take on some trouble. Of course, the difference between military weaponry and hunting weaponry back then was almost nonexistent.

[Sabre]

Right. But that's the point, that the world isnt static. Having a list of legal commandments, so to speak, is fine on paper. In practice though, the world is to dynamic.

The guns thing. I was taught a bit of american history in school. Not the whole thing, but a little. Then I was told the intent of the 'right to bear arms' thing was because the British tried to take all the weapons away so they couldn't fight back. If I understand correctly, it's so that the goverment couldn't become oppressive, because everyone would have a gun and the people would always out number them.

That said most of my education on the matter was the pioneer stuff.

Anyway, the point is that, again, it's selective. For lack of a better term, you seem blinded by faith if that makes sence.

So, an example. Homopathy. When the NHS was founded a guy involved had an interest in peddling the stuff and so put in a clause that it can never ever be removed. Guess what. It's still there. Every atempt to remove it has been ultimately stopped by "But it's in the holy NHS document".

To me, it seems like both sides are putting a prioirty on rule x being holier then rule y. Your using the same argument, only all rules are scared vs some rules are.

[DZComposer]

I'm not blinded by faith by any means.

Here is where you analogy fails: The NHS was a legislative action. It can be easily changed by the legislature if the political climate allowed it. The US Constitution is not a simple legislative document.

I'm not very knowledgeable on how the UK government is set up, but in the US we have a hierarchy of laws. The constitution is the supreme law. If the legislature passes a law that runs afoul of it, that law is legally nullified by the courts.

I think you're thinking about it too hard. One of the brilliant aspects of the US constitution is how robust it has been in the face of change. It has only been changed 27 times in 200 years, and those changes that changed existing structure are relatively minor.  Perhaps the structural change was making senators directly elected. They were originally selected by the state governments.

Part of the reason for it's robustness it it's relative simplicity compared to most other legal documents. Note that this leaves it open to interpretation. This is where I think you're getting tripped-up. It seems like a weakness at first, but when you sit down an think about it, having it being interpretable makes it more able to cope with the changing world, and thus not changing the document itself. This is brilliant because that means the principles of the document survive. If it gets rewritten every 50 years, then these principle could go away.

I'm pretty sure you're wondering who does the interpretation that I mentioned. The answer is the US Supreme Court. Oddly, one of the things the constitution did not do was establish how it was to be enforced. The Supreme Court took it upon itself to be the final arbiter of constitutionality in the case Marbury v. Madison.

About the second amendment, that was a major way it was sold to the public at the time. But it was actually quite intently debated. Thomas Jefferson hated the idea of a standing army. His original draft of the amendment outlawed an army unless there was a war, but everyone should be trained and organized if they needed to form a militia to defend the country. John Adams and others debated it furiously, and the result was the most un-poetic and vague sentence in the entire document: "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." That's the second amendment it it's entirety. It reeks of compromise.

For comparison, here's the fourth: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This one's a lot less vague and is much easier to understand what it is saying.

The supreme court is who figures out what that vague sentence means. They've upheld bans on military weapons.