3 3
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You seem to think you have it all figured out and you don't. We can solve the problem without sacrificing the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, Gun Laws and less homicides can co-exist. You are simply stuck on a liberal platform of what is perceived as the solution and pandering for likes in this forum. 

That is nothing but a weak rationalization. You are in denial. Kalend posted the murder by gun rate for developed nations. It clearly shows America is unique. You clearly state that the 2nd makes America unique. Why do you refuse to see that these are two sides of the same coin?

You also stated that it is a people problem. And it is. America is a nation of people. And when you have people some of them will be violent. When violent people have easy access to weapons some of them will murder. The only part of that set of facts that can be changed is the access to weapons.

But change involves sacrifice and not enough of you are willing to trade freedom for safety. And that is mostly because chances are that it is someone else who will pay the price. And that makes the lot of you selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

Which can be done without rescinding the second amendment. 

Only if there is a drastic change in how the SC interprets it. And that will only happen if people like you demand it. 

There have been many amendments to your constitution. Your nation would survive another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

>>>>> I do not reach for the 2nd Amendment as an excuse or comfort. I reach for the entire constitution as a a founding document that makes this country unique and do not think it should be fucked with.. 

Apparently at one point the constitution had to be "fucked with" or there wouldn't be amendments. Why is it NOW perfect and untouchable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What non Americans may not recognize is the history and values that some Americans attach to the second amendment.

The American revolution, the civil war and a distrust of government. Gave rise in part to it, but it goes beyond that. For many Americans the concept of citizens defeating a dictatorship government through the use of arms. Holding government to account when it attempts to subvert the rights of citizens. Are feelings that run deep.

Naturally the title and intent of this thread is designed to address these concepts. But i have to agree with BIGUN. It can all be addressed W/O changes to the constitution. The problem arises in part because of the stacking of the courts. But mostly because the right refuses to negotiate at all. Labeling any change as a "slippery slope".

This was laid out by a constitutional professor in a recent US network interview. I'm not that clever to frame such an argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Apparently at one point the constitution had to be "fucked with" or there wouldn't be amendments. Why is it NOW perfect and untouchable?

The first ten are the "Bill of Rights" and not to be fucked with. With the exception of the 18th & 21st Amendments, they all added to the "Bill of Rights" and did not take away. The 18th Amendment seemed to forget the Tenth Amendment’s language, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers. 

We simply cannot and will not fuck with the Bill of Rights. Without it - there would be no free pres, no freedom of religion and most importantly - no civil rights acts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

We simply cannot and will not fuck with the Bill of Rights. Without it - there would be no free pres, no freedom of religion and most importantly - no civil rights acts.

Limiting the second amendment does not mean limiting the other amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

Limiting the second amendment does not mean limiting the other amendments.

No, it doesn't. But it's not the place to start. Because of everything that Bigun said. Because saying that really does play right into the slippery slope argument. As well as playing into the slippery slope argument for changing other BOR amendments as long as the first time worked. It's the last resort in my view, because, yes, 'Murica.

Adding a new amendment that possibly clarified the meaning of "militia" would be the only possible start in my view, and I'm not legal scholar. It'd have to get past the current Supreme Court.

Piecemeal is the way to go.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

We simply cannot and will not fuck with the Bill of Rights. Without it - there would be no free pres, no freedom of religion and most importantly - no civil rights acts.  

I would point out that we fuck with it all the time.  Libel and slander laws restrict free speech - and most have been found constitutional.  Pornography laws restrict free speech - and most have been found constitutional.  Gun waiting periods and background checks restrict your right to own a gun - and most have been found constitutional.

I agree that we don't need to repeal the amendments themselves.  But we will keep mucking about with them, passing laws that limit the harm they can do while retaining most of the freedoms they guarantee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

No, it doesn't. But it's not the place to start. Because of everything that Bigun said. Because saying that really does play right into the slippery slope argument. As well as playing into the slippery slope argument for changing other BOR amendments as long as the first time worked. It's the last resort in my view, because, yes, 'Murica.

Adding a new amendment that possibly clarified the meaning of "militia" would be the only possible start in my view, and I'm not legal scholar. It'd have to get past the current Supreme Court.

Piecemeal is the way to go.

Wendy P.

Apparently even Wendy is blinded. The Constitution contains an amending formula. That is because the God like figures who created it did not consider it to be perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billvon said:

I would point out that we fuck with it all the time.  Libel and slander laws restrict free speech - and most have been found constitutional.  Pornography laws restrict free speech - and most have been found constitutional.  Gun waiting periods and background checks restrict your right to own a gun - and most have been found constitutional.

I agree that we don't need to repeal the amendments themselves.  But we will keep mucking about with them, passing laws that limit the harm they can do while retaining most of the freedoms they guarantee.

No argument. Honing the amendments was part of the founders intent. I was addressing Ken's point regarding rescinding the 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Piecemeal is the way to go.

I have to strongly disagree. Piecemeal is what got us where we are today with some 2,000+ gun laws that are ineffective. Repealing EVERY gun law known to the US and starting over with "Well-Regulated" in mind, with both parties is the way to go.

At some point, we have got to say - our way isn't working, stop it, tear it down and start over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm saying that yes, the mechanism exists to change it. I do, in fact, understand that. I just don't think it should be the first goal. If it becomes a goal, it should be the will of the American people.

Guns are a US problem that is impacting the countries around, and now Brazil (whose president loved Trump, and likes our approach to guns -- both to fairly horrific effect according to most of the significant number of people I know there). Our current (in large part) fanned-up obsession with them is a huge problem, and can be laid in fair part at the feet of the NRA's desire to acquire national power. They defined the fanning, and then gave a lot of money to foment it. But it's also part of what has to be dealt with now.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

I have to strongly disagree. Piecemeal is what got us where we are today with some 2,000+ gun laws that are ineffective. Repealing EVERY gun law known to the US and starting over with "Well-Regulated" in mind, with both parties is the way to go.

At some point, we have got to say - our way isn't working, stop it, tear it down and start over.

OK, I see what you're saying, and that makes sense. It'll be almost as tall an order as changing the amendment, and would probably have to be done state by state, with the non-complying states being subject to some sort of sanction. Because otherwise, yeah, they'll just move to Texas, Montana, and New Hampshire.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I have to strongly disagree. Piecemeal is what got us where we are today with some 2,000+ gun laws that are ineffective. Repealing EVERY gun law known to the US and starting over with "Well-Regulated" in mind, with both parties is the way to go.

At some point, we have got to say - our way isn't working, stop it, tear it down and start over.

Hi Keith,

Re:  At some point, we have got to say - our way isn't working, stop it, tear it down and start over.

Is this not the argument that Skydekker & Gowlerk are presenting?

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Re:  At some point, we have got to say - our way isn't working, stop it, tear it down and start over.

Is this not the argument that Skydekker & Gowlerk are presenting?

That or simply stating you are willing to give up your favourite family member or friend to gun violence as a price to pay for the good parts of the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also the argument that Bigun is presenting, just via a different path.

Given that Bigun is more like a large contingent of the people who own guns than I am, I'd think his opinion was well worth listening to.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

OK, I see what you're saying, and that makes sense. It'll be almost as tall an order as changing the amendment, and would probably have to be done state by state, with the non-complying states being subject to some sort of sanction. Because otherwise, yeah, they'll just move to Texas, Montana, and New Hampshire.

Wendy P.

 

18 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

OKLAHOMA!!! Don't forget Oklahoma! :rofl:

"Moving" is all just talkety talk in the gun forums. Nobody moves just to buy a AR-15, a suppressor, to get a carry permit, etc. I belong to many US gun forums Snipers Hide, Brian Enos, etc. You will never find a rational discussion about gun control in a gun forum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

 

You also stated that it is a people problem. And it is. America is a nation of people.

Right until it comes to defending the Electoral College, then the right vigorously maintains that forests, mountains and deserts count for just as much as people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Sorry, I should clarify. the 2000+ ineffective gun laws, not the 2nd Amendment. 

Hi Keith,

Not a problem; I just do not care to read into something other than as presented.

While I would like to see the 2nd revised or done away with, I seriously doubt that it will happen within my lifetime, or longer.

I would like to have some states enact a law(s) that say that no weapon/gun can hold more than one bullet at a time.  Somewhat like the old flintlock rifles.  I do think that this would pass a SCOTUS exam.  While it would not stop all killing, I do feel it would make a huge dent in these mass killings what seem so common in this country.

Lastly, I absolutely agree with John Kallend that it is completely nutz that this country has a Constitution that allows these mass killings to occur.  IMO we are better than that.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I bought my one and only gun ( a single shot Remington  22 cal ) when I was 13 yrs old.  I just walked up to the local pharmacy, shoe store, gun shop ( all-in-one ) and paid $5 for it; the cleaning kit cost me $8.

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3