To help us look for better answers (guns)

[Revoltingest]

"I called that guy a jerk therefore everything he ever said and did is wrong. Never mind he radical change in personal liberty, rights for women, ending slavery etc. a jerk is always bad" LOL the raging cognitive distortions in that mind set are off the chart.

We do indeed have a problem with incivility, emotion
run amok, & demands for extreme governmental control.
Such difficult issue to discuss without becoming pigeon chess.
@esmith offered a lengthy OP with many thoughtful proposals.
I didn't agree with all, but it's a worthy effort. Of course, the
thread soon became riddled with unrelated anti-gun rants.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I don't care that you don't know your history. So if you believe I am wrong, that is only a belief in all cases.

You mentioned a date. Yet you've no comment
on what happened, nor on what you infer.
Well then....1787. Learn some history.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Okay America 101
We have a constitution. It supersedes other laws nationally or locally. In the Constitution as amended we the people have aright to arms among several others. The government is expressly forbidden from messing with that right. Anything other than a constitutional amendment would be unlawful. And frankly a deceleration of war on the law abiding citizen of the land.

How long did your Constitution allow for racial segregation to exist? I can somehow remember this all changing, what, less than five or six decades ago, so I would appreciate people being realistic and not seeing their past declarations and expectations set in stone. But then you are religious, and which tends to behave the same way.

 

[F1fan]

Okay America 101
We have a constitution. It supersedes other laws nationally or locally.

The constitution isn't law itself, it is a guideline to laws. Laws have to be consistent with the constitution, and that is often what the SC does in its rulings. It's gotten things wrong in the past, just took up Dred Scott.

In the Constitution as amended we the people have aright to arms among several others.

Don't forget the crucial part, to ensure security of the state with well regulated militias guns are a right. This right is established for the sake of well regulated militias, so given there are no more militias this right can be limited in other ways.

The government is expressly forbidden from messing with that right.

Who sys, you? Show us in the constitution is says this.

Are you aware that the rules are that Congress can eliminate the 2nd amendment? It was added by government, it can be eliminated by government.

Anything other than a constitutional amendment would be unlawful. And frankly a deceleration of war on the law abiding citizen of the land.

Just itching to kill someone, it sounds like. Maybe you should change your handle to "Truth in guns". Do you think "lawful" gun owners should attack the government if guns are no longer a right, or are regulated further?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You mentioned a date. Yet you've no comment
on what happened, nor on what you infer.
Well then....1787. Learn some history.

Well, in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller decision guns became an individual right.
BTW I wrote google 2008 2nd amendment, so for 1787 what is the other part?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay America 101
We have a constitution. It supersedes other laws nationally or locally. In the Constitution as amended we the people have aright to arms among several others. The government is expressly forbidden from messing with that right. Anything other than a constitutional amendment would be unlawful. And frankly a deceleration of war on the law abiding citizen of the land.

There is a thought as to weither the founders of the United States would had givin a call to arms if they could see the situation that exists today and see what is going on at present.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a thought as to weither the founders of the United States would had givin a call to arms if they could see the situation that exists today and see what is going on at present.

Or accept the current 2008 interpretation as per District of Columbia v. Heller done by SC.

 

[Truth in love]

Well, it is a different interpretant of 2nd and thereby it changed whether it was a right. And that change was done by the government, in this case the SC.

The right exists. Gravity did not start newton got waked on the head by an apple nor would it have stopped if someone had murdered him before he told anyone. To assume that governments create rights is to accept that they can remove them at whim.

Would you be okay if the supreme court decided that you don't have the right to live, speak, vote etc.?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The right exists. Gravity did not start newton got waked on the head by an apple nor would it have stopped if someone had murdered him before he told anyone. To assume that governments create rights is to accept that they can remove them at whim.

Would you be okay if the supreme court decided that you don't have the right to live, speak, vote etc.?

No, well I have no absolute right to live since I will die or if convicted I could lose the right to life. I have no absolute right to speech, since on private property not mine I can't say what I want and I have no absolute right to vote, since that can be taken away.
So you are trying to trick me with an appeal to emotion, but I am not going to fall for it.
No right exists unless in a given social context. Gravity is different.

 

[Truth in love]

I strongly suggest you do like in Switzerland. Every part of the constitution can be changed if people vote for the change. And it changes all the time, since we vote for changing it a few times a year.

which is a good idea. Who wants a constitution reflecting the values available in 1291 CE?
or 1776 or something, in your case?

Ciao

- viole

I don't want it to change all the time. It has needed some improvements, but the whole point is consistency. If freedom is out of style I'll be out of style.

 

[Truth in love]

Then who settles it?

Are you not aware that Congress can make laws? The SC can invalidate a law if it interprets the constitution a certain way. It's all quite fluid. But the primary point of laws and rights is to make society safe and stable for citizens. The issue of prevalent guns is more and more a huge threat to safety and stability. It is apparent that access to guns needs better regulation. I suggest an application process, waiting periods, and mental heath screenings.

Guns are not he problem. Greed is a problem, violence is a problem, unstable families leading to massive child hood trauma is a problem. Good people being armed kills almost no one each year. Bad people with guns kill a lot of people. Bad people without guns kill a lot of people.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the feds never attacked core liberty. No state was willing to ratify the constitution until the bill of rights was in the works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't want it to change all the time. It has needed some improvements, but the whole point is consistency. If freedom is out of style I'll be out of style.

Well, you are not the only one to decide that. And neither am I. That is how a democracy, even a federal republic like the USA works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Guns are not he problem. Greed is a problem, violence is a problem, unstable families leading to massive child hood trauma is a problem. Good people being armed kills almost no one each year. Bad people with guns kill a lot of people. Bad people without guns kill a lot of people.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the feds never attacked core liberty. No state was willing to ratify the constitution until the bill of rights was in the works.

That is your view. As for gun rights you only got them in 2008. BTW tell that to the slaves and women as per the Bill of Rights.

 

[Truth in love]

The constitution isn't law itself, it is a guideline to laws. Laws have to be consistent with the constitution, and that is often what the SC does in its rulings. It's gotten things wrong in the past, just took up Dred Scott.


Don't forget the crucial part, to ensure security of the state with well regulated militias guns are a right. This right is established for the sake of well regulated militias, so given there are no more militias this right can be limited in other ways.


Who sys, you? Show us in the constitution is says this.

Are you aware that the rules are that Congress can eliminate the 2nd amendment? It was added by government, it can be eliminated by government.


Just itching to kill someone, it sounds like. Maybe you should change your handle to "Truth in guns". Do you think "lawful" gun owners should attack the government if guns are no longer a right, or are regulated further?

I take it you never studied the Constitution. It is law the supreme law of the USA. Without it we are back to articles of confederation.

The lack of a militia in no way changes the right of the people.

The government may abuse a right like we saw with slavery and many other abuses. but the right is independent of government oppression. My right to religion did not end when governors s wanted to abuse people under the guise of covid safety.

And no I'm not itching to kill anyone. I want peace. Peace will only happen if the government plays by the rules. I would like to prevent a 2nd civil war. The people have the right to change government if they need to. The long train of abuses and usurpation will only be tolerated for so long. A peaceful solution is far better than a violent one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I take it you never studied the Constitution. It is law the supreme law of the USA. Without it we are back to articles of confederation.

The lack of a militia in no way changes the right of the people.

The government may abuse a right like we saw with slavery and many other abuses. but the right is independent of government oppression. My right to religion did not end when governors s wanted to abuse people under the guise of covid safety.

And no I'm not itching to kill anyone. I want peace. Peace will only happen if the government plays by the rules. I would like to prevent a 2nd civil war. The people have the right to change government if they need to. The long train of abuses and usurpation will only be tolerated for so long. A peaceful solution is far better than a violent one.

Okay, what is your compromise when it comes to guns?

 

[Truth in love]

There is a thought as to weither the founders of the United States would had givin a call to arms if they could see the situation that exists today and see what is going on at present.

The potential for rapid fire weapons was developed in 1722.
They may not have guessed at all the new stuff, but they wrote that we would have the same weapons as the military. That has been messed with already. I doubt they foresaw the internet, should we end freedom of speech or only let you use a circa 1800 printing press?

 

[Truth in love]

No, well I have no absolute right to live since I will die or if convicted I could lose the right to life. I have no absolute right to speech, since on private property not mine I can't say what I want and I have no absolute right to vote, since that can be taken away.
So you are trying to trick me with an appeal to emotion, but I am not going to fall for it.
No right exists unless in a given social context. Gravity is different.

Going to decline that line of non reasoning. Rights can be restricted when convicted of a crime. Restricting a right for any other reason is oppressive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The potential for rapid fire weapons was developed in 1722.
They may not have guessed at all the new stuff, but they wrote that we would have the same weapons as the military. That has been messed with already. I doubt they foresaw the internet, should we end freedom of speech or only let you use a circa 1800 printing press?

You don't have freedom of speech on the Internet except for your own site. Freedom of speech doesn't apply on another person's property. The same with a printing press if you don't own it.

 

[Truth in love]

Okay, what is your compromise when it comes to guns?

When a person commits a violent felony they lose this right at least for some time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Going to decline that line of non reasoning. Rights can be restricted when convicted of a crime. Restricting a right for any other reason is oppressive.

Well, you can lose your right to manage your own property without being convicted of a crime. So your example doesn't hold.