Gun control and the second amendment....

[Matthew3590]

We have all those things.
They make no difference in CRIME

We also have laws against murder, with VERY strict penalties.
How's that working for you?

I agree. Also how more thorough of a background check can you get?

 

[TallChickMagnet]

You can't amend a right.

Yes, the Constitution can change by amendment, but it's hardly the "change with the times" document you want it to be. If it were that... it might as well not exist.

A living Constitution is a dead Constitution. Behold the paradox of modern arrogance. Perhaps our right to free speech shall also change with the times. Perhaps our right to worship whom or what we please shall also change with the times. Perhaps our right to a trial shall also change with the times.

Perhaps change can be a very bad thing when directed by very bad people - or well-meaning people who don't understand the consequences of such change. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

My right to defend myself, my property, and my freedom - through the use of arms - is unchangeable. My right to speak my mind through whatever medium I choose is unchangeable. My right to disagree with my government is unchangeable. My right to worship my God is unchangeable. These are fundamental rights belonging to every human being on Earth. They can be infringed, but they cannot be taken away. They do not change with the times.

Do not presume that because my rights are described, that by changing that description one may alter or take away my rights. You cannot. Barack Obama cannot. George Bush could not. Congress cannot. My state legislature cannot. The U.N. cannot.

The constitution has been changed many times. The right to own slaves was taken away, the right to drink alcohol was taken and returned. Women, Blacks, and non-property owners had to be given the right to vote. It also has been reinterpreted many times. Rights that should have been self evident and natural had to be forced upon us, equal access to education, work, transportation, lunch counters, etc... Nothing in that document is exempt from change if it makes our country a better place to live...

 

[TallChickMagnet]

We have all those things.
They make no difference in CRIME

We also have laws against murder, with VERY strict penalties.
How's that working for you?

No we don't. The NRA fights against all of these. They fight against allowing enough time to do proper background checks, proper usage tests, mental health screenings... The rules that we have now are to weak...

 

[ChickensRDinos]

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Thank you for posting this. I think it is very relevant.

There was a shooting at my high school my senior year and I see it brought up from time to time in different articles as a pro gun example because an armed police officer who was already on campus that day took the shooter down. I see people mention it with the attitude that the more guns in a situation the better. I heard this mentioned a lot after the Aurora theater shooting: "If I had had my gun on me I would have saved everyone."

I think it is an irresponsible attitude towards guns and it makes me certain that whoever is saying it has not actually been in a situation like this. It is terrifying and complete chaos. It is not like hunting deer or going to a shooting range. A trained professional who was in the right place at the right time and able to shoot away from the school towards the shooter may have very well saved my life that day but it certainly did not convince me that a bunch of armed everyday people with concealed weapons would have made that situation better. The Aurora theater was an enclosed space filled with tear gas - the last thing that was needed was more people shooting.

I am not anti gun but the idea that we will all be safer if everyone is armed is not a realistic or practical one.

 

[duckinnut]

Interesting that it says "keep" and not "own". Perhaps the original intent was not to have houses full of weapons, but to allow the people to create a local militia in times of war and be issued a weapon for the short term defense of property against enemies.

So if a town bylaw in your town says you may "keep" livestock on your premises. So that means you don't own them? The govt. may take them when the feel the need. Maybe the town will let you raise them only later to take them to feed others. Maybe that is their intent. Sorry we are here to take your chickens for the soup kitchen.

Bear in mind these people spoke and wrote much differently than we do today, you could read any document from that time and twist it to your way of thinking. But I will say this, documents written during that time may sound funny to us today but were concise. Read a law written in the last 50 years, there is so much mumbo jumbo in it that most of the lawmakers don't even understand it.

 

[duckinnut]

Keep can be interchanged with owned, given the context. It's obviously an individual right; George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and many, many others explicitly praise individual firearms ownership, and every single other right in the Bill of Rights refers to individuals. It seems odd to think that the Second Amendment is not referring to an individual right as well.

Of course, the right would still exist even if the 2A was repealed - it merely describes a right, it does not create one. While we can go on and on about practicality, this entire debate boils down to philosophy.

Agreed. 100%

 

[Ridgerunner]

My right to defend myself, my property, and my freedom - through the use of arms - is unchangeable. My right to speak my mind through whatever medium I choose is unchangeable. My right to disagree with my government is unchangeable. My right to worship my God is unchangeable. These are fundamental rights belonging to every human being on Earth. They can be infringed, but they cannot be taken away. They do not change with the times.

Rights can be regulated and are, regularly. Look at libel, slander, copyright and trademark regulations for Freedom of Speech. Even the size of signs next to a road can be regulated.

For freedom of religion, look at the things that can cause a church to lose its tax-free status. You have snake-handling laws in most states. There was a local character that did some really weird things in public and tried the defense that his religion requires him to use mind-altering drugs. He lost.

For freedom of assembly, you can have parade permit requirements that limit that. They sometimes use trespassing laws or nuisance ordinances to put limits on that. You could even argue that the Sunshine laws requiring transparency in certain officials regulates that.

For right to bear arms, try carrying a pocket knife into the Empire State Building as I once did before 9/11. Think about trying to carry arms on an airplane.

There are plenty of examples of “rights” being regulated or limited. I don’t necessarily agree with all these but they are there. You might look at these as an infringement but when they start to infringe on the rights of others, I call it civilization. How we balance the rights of the individual with the rights of others defines what kind of civilization we have.

I’m going to go back and re-read what Rebel wrote to try to understand it better. At least he uses facts in his discussion, not just emotion.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
I think this guy did pretty good but you are right, there are a lot of internet rambos that like to talk. The Aurora shooting on the other hand was filled with trained military. Yes there was gas but it was a can in a big theater. This blinded the gunman more than anyone cause he had a mask on. The gunman also was looking at the projector light so even though he could see, no way he could see as well as others. He also gave up when a cop confronted him. So to me, the people that say an armed person could not have helped or would have made things worse sound just as dumb as the Rambo wannabees...

Remember there was a church shooting in the same town not long before the theater shooting. In the church shooting, the shooter was taken down by a patron with a gun before he even got in the door.


The school shooting the other day... The shooter was confronted by adults well before getting around any kids. The principle an councler(spelling) charged the armed man in the hall after hearing the shots from there office. No question in my mind of the bravery of those two women. I also have a hard time with the idea that this would have been worse if those two women had a gun in there desk. I am sure I could say the same about the other adults that were killed.

Do I know that these women would have had a gun in there desk? No. What I do know is that the choice had been taken away from them an no means of replacement security for those kids were given to them. I mean to me, if we trust our future to these school teachers an administrators how can we not trust them to be armed. If they are not responsible enough for the anti gun groups, then that is proof that they think no one is an we are not talking control but bans.

 

[frigginchi]

 

[duckinnut]

The constitution has been changed many times. The right to own slaves was taken away, the right to drink alcohol was taken and returned. Women, Blacks, and non-property owners had to be given the right to vote. It also has been reinterpreted many times. Rights that should have been self evident and natural had to be forced upon us, equal access to education, work, transportation, lunch counters, etc... Nothing in that document is exempt from change if it makes our country a better place to live...

Actually it the 18th amendment does not say you could not drink alcohol. Its says manufacture,sale, importation,exportation and or distribution of alcohol. But was it referring to companies or individuals? So according to the amendment I can make some for myself.