http://glasses-justice.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomtownies2011-05-18 11:11 am
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomtownies2011-05-18 11:11 am
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:
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."
"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."