fandomtownies | Civics: The Bill of Rights, The Community Center, Wednesday Evening

Current Mood: thoughtful

Entry tags:

Civics: The Bill of Rights, The Community Center, Wednesday Evening

Alex had entirely too many things on her mind, today. The best answer was to dive heavily into Constitutional law and let that distract her. Law geek: do not try this at home.

"Welcome back," she said, "to those of you who were here last week; and welcome, for the first time, to any new faces. This class is covering the Bill of Rights, that is, the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. They're a number of rules added to the end which guaranteed certain personal freedoms. And that's all the recap you'll be getting, so if you are new, I highly recommend doing some personal research, or else talking to me after class."

She would be delighted to ramble on any related topic. Honest.

"Last week, we talked about the First Amendment, which covered a few different forms of expression -- speech, religion, the press, and assembly. The second is much narrower in scope, but messy in its interpretation, so it, too, needs a week to itself. Later on, we'll be combining some amendments together to make everything fit, but this is not one of those weeks. Here's the text."

She gestured to the whiteboard, where the following had been written, in dry-erase marker:

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.

She paused to see if anyone wanted to write that down before continuing.

"A militia is an army made up of citizens. So, in summary form: we may need a volunteer corps, therefore, the citizens should be able to own weapons. Now we get into the fun parts. Some people put the stress on the first, dependent clause, and say that since we've moved past the time of citizen militias, the amendment is antiquated and was never meant to apply to John Q. Public's right to own a semi-automatic handgun. Others point out that the important part of the amendment is the second half -- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. The reasoning is less important than the result. Our founders wanted us to have a free press, a separation of church and state, and guns available to whoever wanted them."

This seemed like a good time to sip her tea and take in the room.

"Currently, most of the brouhaha involves the degree. Should all weapons be allowed? This amendment was written in a time before machine guns, before rocket launchers, before hollow-point bullets. Some weapons are designed to do more damage than others. Obviously, we can't outlaw all weapons. People can and do kill with household objects, and I don't just mean butcher knives, either. You could strangle someone with a necktie, or drown them in a bathtub. As the NRA loves to point out, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But people with guns kill people more easily than people with neckties, or other common household objects. Guns allow for distance, like with sniper rifles, or for a spray of bullets taking out twenty to thirty people in a room in a matter of seconds. Are we still saying that all guns are allowed? Remember, the amendment says, the right shall not be infringed. If you disagree with it, should we go against an amendment? Taking away rights is a dangerous precedent. And if you don't, what if someone gets their hands on a bomb? A rocket launcher? A nuclear weapon?"

She hesitated, and considered calling that done, but decided there was more that needed to be said.

"This issue can be very contentious," she noted. "It can also be personal for people in a lot of meaningful, and sometimes traumatic ways. I'd like to ask that everyone step carefully, please. I myself have been shot. I also own a gun. Don't make assumptions about people on either side of the debate."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(I decided against a sign-in thread, again. If people would prefer one, let me know zomg.)

Jack was there for two reasons: First, to see Ms. Cabot before his first day at work and, second, to get a better grasp on U.S. law before he started work again. He pulled out a notebook and took a seat where he'd be able to watch people join the class.

Emma had missed last week's class due to other conflicts, but she was here today, coffee in-hand and notebook tucked into her purse. Hopefully Miss Cabot would be willing to let her join in, albeit a week behind.

Hermione found somewhere to sit, taking the time before class began to look over her notes from last week. There were quite a few pages, thanks to the fact that she'd done some of her own research since then and expanded on what she'd already written.

Once a nerd, always a nerd. Don't judge.

Rude was there, again. This class proved to be interesting.

Sam had had way too much fun last week to not show up again. When he realized what they'd be talking about, he perked up a little. He had a lot of opinions about guns, and he was curious what everyone else would say.

Take notes. Chit-chat. Doodle little guns in the margins.

This was interesting. Emma knew how to use a firearm, certainly, as she'd been on foxhunts and such from a young age. That didn't mean she'd liked them, or regarded them as necessary.

Of course Hermione mostly had her head down, writing detailed notes. She was very much listening, though, especially since this was a topic she had no experience with.

What do you think the second amendment originally meant, and how should it, therefore, be applied, in a modern setting? Is it just about having a back-up corps of volunteers? Is it intended for citizens to know their way around weapons, just in case? Is it talking about the right of citizens to form their own militias, and possibly topple the government itself from within? Speculate all you like, bbs.

(and ping messily plz!)

"The punctuation and grammar is bad," Rude decided. "So... who knows?"

"It was written over two hundred years ago," Alex said easily. "So the language has changed considerably in the interim."

"Did anyone think to clarify it back then? You could say it means whatever you want it to."

"Within reason," Alex said, with some amusement. "You couldn't really argue that this amendment had to do with planting trees."

"If there weren't any trees, no one could have... polearms," Rude countered, with a perfectly straight face.

"I wouldn't be infringing on your rights by making you switch to metal polearms," Alex teased.

Rude nodded agreement. "Just infringing on... tradition."

What should or shouldn't be included? All weapons? No weapons? If you're going to outlaw some and not others, how do you draw the line between what's legitimate and what's not? Furthermore, if you're going to outlaw any at all, how do you reconcile that with the amendment clearly stating that there is to be no infringement of the right to bear arms?

If, instead, you say there should be no limitations on weapons, does that mean a person can own a nuclear warhead?

(ping messily woo!)

Edited 2011-05-18 15:18 (UTC)

"It almost seems like what we believe doesn't matter," Jack said, after some thought. "People who need to defend themselves --or who think they do -- or who want to commit a crime will find a way to get a weapon. All the law does is limit people who respect it."

"Interesting," Alex said. "So you would argue for the legalization of weapons, not from the perspective of the amendment itself, but from a practical standpoint. I think the saying is, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns?"

"I hadn't heard that, but I'd agree with it," Jack nodded. "I generally have an easier time with practical arguments anyhow. I'm sure it's a bad habit if I'm to be a lawyer."

"Not necessarily," Alex said with a smile. "In court, you'll need to find legal precedent for whatever you argue, but it's never a bad idea to appeal to practicality. Convince the judge that you have the law and common sense on your side, and you're golden."

"The law says 'keep' and 'bear' arms," Rude pointed out. "It doesn't say anything about infringing... buying and selling."

"That sounds like the kind of hair-splitting a lawyer would appreciate," Alex said. And, well, she should know. "Were you suggesting that as a possible line of attack, or seriously suggesting the founders omitted that for a reason?"

"It's definitely not the... intent. But you could argue it."

"You could," she said. "The easy counter would be that infringing buying and selling would, de facto, infringe the keeping and bearing, in that it would hamper the ability for new people to obtain arms to keep and bear. Your response?"

Rude shrugged. "I don't have one. Unless I'm allowed to use force."

Violence didn't solve anything, but it often made unsolved problems go away.

Anything Alex missed goes here.

(messy as you wanna be)

After class.

"Interesting class topic," Jack observed as he wandered up. "Hello. It's good to see you again, and thank you again for the job."

"Good to see you again, too," Alex said, warmly. "Welcome back. The second amendment's a fairly interesting one. If I ever start my own country, I'm going to be a lot more clear in the wording of my constitution."

"If I ever start my own country, I'll ask you for help getting everything just so," Jack promised. "Though I'd rather be the power behind the throne, anyhow."

"Then the law is definitely the way to go," Alex laughed.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Civics: The Bill of Rights, The Community Center, Wednesday Evening

Arrive and Mingle - CIV02

Re: Arrive and Mingle - CIV02

Re: Arrive and Mingle - CIV02

Re: Arrive and Mingle - CIV02

Re: Arrive and Mingle - CIV02

Re: Arrive and Mingle - CIV02

During the Lecture - CIV02

Re: During the Lecture - CIV02

Re: During the Lecture - CIV02

Discussion #1 - Interpretation of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #1 - Interpretation of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #1 - Interpretation of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #1 - Interpretation of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #1 - Interpretation of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #1 - Interpretation of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #1 - Interpretation of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #1 - Interpretation of the Amendment - CIV02

Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Re: Discussion #2 - Limitations (Or Lack Thereof) of the Amendment - CIV02

Discussion #3 - General Discussion Not Otherwise Specified - CIV02

Talk to Alex - CIV02

Re: Talk to Alex - CIV02

Re: Talk to Alex - CIV02

Re: Talk to Alex - CIV02

Re: Talk to Alex - CIV02

OOC - CIV02