Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[Jenksismyhero]

1) his mother bought them legally

2) there was nothing in his background that would have set off a red flag on his check. he had no criminal record.

 

So you're admitting that your new requirements would have done nothing. Good! Glad we agree.

[StrangeSox]

And you still would have the right to vote...

why are you guys so interested in restricting the right to vote? is that causing you demonstrable harm?

[EvilMonkey]

i would love, just once, for you to have an opinion that is supported by something other than sarcasm and snark. do you even KNOW why you hold the opinions you do? can you defend your positions without comparing them to completely unrelated subjects and creating false correlations?

 

i don't think you can.

The only defense needed is it is my right per the constitution to own a gun. You don't like guns and want to restrict that or outright take it away. If I want to legally by a Glock 19, I can do so. I should not have to prove to you, or anyone else, WHY I NEED it. I want it. I went thru background checks, waiting periods, have no criminal record, I got my gun. More paperwork than it took to vote.

 

You want all these restriction on a right. Take away this one, and the next one becomes easier. Talking bad about the government? Well, we need to put a stop to that! You see it in dictatorships all the time, and even now in the UN where Russia, China and others want to seize control over what is on the internet as they are tired of their people seeing truth out there.

[StrangeSox]

So you're admitting that your new requirements would have done nothing. Good! Glad we agree.

 

If nobody could have purchased handguns or assault rifles*, or if the process was sufficiently restricted, Nancy Lanza likely would not have owned these weapons. Her son would not have been able to take them, shoot her in the head multiple times, and then proceed to a nearby elementary school, where he then shot and killed 26 more people, 20 of whom where children.

 

*I realize that this isn't a well-defined category

Edited December 17, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

So you're admitting that your new requirements would have done nothing. Good! Glad we agree.

his mother wouldn't have been able to own the guns.

 

take off the blinders.

[southsider2k5]

why are you guys so interested in restricting the right to vote? is that causing you demonstrable harm?

 

I'm just laughing at the flopping back and forth on the generalities here. Sometimes it is OK for municipalities to over ride, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is OK to listen to the constitution, others it isn't. Even when it is in direct contradiction of what was just said at times.

 

 

[GoSox05]

The only defense needed is it is my right per the constitution to own a gun. You don't like guns and want to restrict that or outright take it away. If I want to legally by a Glock 19, I can do so. I should not have to prove to you, or anyone else, WHY I NEED it. I want it. I went thru background checks, waiting periods, have no criminal record, I got my gun. More paperwork than it took to vote.

 

You want all these restriction on a right. Take away this one, and the next one becomes easier. Talking bad about the government? Well, we need to put a stop to that! You see it in dictatorships all the time, and even now in the UN where Russia, China and others want to seize control over what is on the internet as they are tired of their people seeing truth out there.

 

This hasn't been the case in other countries. I still consider Japan and U.K to be very free countries.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

1) his mother bought them legally

2) there was nothing in his background that would have set off a red flag on his check. he had no criminal record.

The mother herself screwed up here. he was removed from school because she didn't like the way the school was treating him. there are records of him having 'difficulty', and not in the learning sense. There is a person on record saying that he used to babysit the kid when he was 8 or 9 and was told by the mom to never turn his back on him. She knew even then he was a potential time bomb, but did nothing. There were signs, but the mother covered them up.

[southsider2k5]

his mother wouldn't have been able to own the guns.

 

take off the blinders.

 

Short of a constitutional amendment, I have yet to see any real valid change that could have been made to restrict the mother's purchase of the handguns. Even if a successful argument can be made about the assault weapons, there really isn't one that will stand up to constitutional muster for handguns. This is exactly what Chicago just learned the expensive way.

[Jenksismyhero]

This hasn't been the case in other countries. I still consider Japan and U.K to be very free countries.

 

With severely limited personal freedoms. Those governments are insanely intrusive with search and seizure laws for example. UK's government watches everything (and sadly, we're following that trend)

[Reddy]

The only defense needed is it is my right per the constitution to own a gun. You don't like guns and want to restrict that or outright take it away. If I want to legally by a Glock 19, I can do so. I should not have to prove to you, or anyone else, WHY I NEED it. I want it. I went thru background checks, waiting periods, have no criminal record, I got my gun. More paperwork than it took to vote.

 

You want all these restriction on a right. Take away this one, and the next one becomes easier. Talking bad about the government? Well, we need to put a stop to that! You see it in dictatorships all the time, and even now in the UN where Russia, China and others want to seize control over what is on the internet as they are tired of their people seeing truth out there.

 

5 year old child: "But I WAAAANT it!"

 

Grown Ass American: "But I WAAAAANT it!"

 

pathetic.

 

it is not your inalienable right to have a semi-automatic weapon. the founders who wrote the constitution had NO IDEA what a semi or automatic weapon was because they didn't exist. they wrote that as a member of a militia your right to keep and bear a weapon should not be infringed - referring to muskets and single shot rifles. you really don't think it deserves to be updated for 2012?

 

how do you feel about leviticus? do you have a wife or girlfriend? when she's menstruating do you keep her outside and burn the sheets? if not, you're not following the laws of an ancient text to the letter!

[Jenksismyhero]

his mother wouldn't have been able to own the guns.

 

take off the blinders.

 

Stop changing the argument. You gave a list of 4-5 additional restrictions, not outright bans.

[EvilMonkey]

This hasn't been the case in other countries. I still consider Japan and U.K to be very free countries.

read up on hate speech laws in the UK lately. Hell, they are even branding opposition parties as hate groups and trying to remove kids from families that register as belonging to that group. They are in a decent away from freedom.

[StrangeSox]

The only defense needed is it is my right per the constitution to own a gun. You don't like guns and want to restrict that or outright take it away. If I want to legally by a Glock 19, I can do so. I should not have to prove to you, or anyone else, WHY I NEED it. I want it. I went thru background checks, waiting periods, have no criminal record, I got my gun. More paperwork than it took to vote.

 

You want all these restriction on a right. Take away this one, and the next one becomes easier. Talking bad about the government? Well, we need to put a stop to that! You see it in dictatorships all the time, and even now in the UN where Russia, China and others want to seize control over what is on the internet as they are tired of their people seeing truth out there.

 

That's descriptively true, but not if we're actually trying to have a discussion on the validity of that right and of the Supreme Court decisions granting you that right. We've fixed rather egregious mistakes in the Constitution in the past and can do so again.

 

I believe that you should have to prove why you need a deadly weapon. Possibly the 2nd amendment limits what restrictions we can now impose, but future court rulings or an amendment could change that, so it's useless to point to that as a shield.

 

Is every other government that has stricter gun laws than the US just like Russia or China? Or are many of them, like Israel for example, rather like the US? Does our possession of guns really protect infringements on our 1st amendment rights? Why hasn't it stopped the assaults on our 4th and 5th amendment rights?

[Reddy]

I'm just laughing at the flopping back and forth on the generalities here. Sometimes it is OK for municipalities to over ride, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is OK to listen to the constitution, others it isn't. Even when it is in direct contradiction of what was just said at times.

exactly. the world isn't black and white.

[southsider2k5]

i would love, just once, for you to have an opinion that is supported by something other than sarcasm and snark. do you even KNOW why you hold the opinions you do? can you defend your positions without comparing them to completely unrelated subjects and creating false correlations?

 

i don't think you can.

 

 

5 year old child: "But I WAAAANT it!"

 

Grown Ass American: "But I WAAAAANT it!"

 

pathetic.

 

it is not your inalienable right to have a semi-automatic weapon. the founders who wrote the constitution had NO IDEA what a semi or automatic weapon was because they didn't exist. they wrote that as a member of a militia your right to keep and bear a weapon should not be infringed - referring to muskets and single shot rifles. you really don't think it deserves to be updated for 2012?

 

how do you feel about leviticus? do you have a wife or girlfriend? when she's menstruating do you keep her outside and burn the sheets? if not, you're not following the laws of an ancient text to the letter!

 

Well done.

[Jenksismyhero]

5 year old child: "But I WAAAANT it!"

 

Grown Ass American: "But I WAAAAANT it!"

 

pathetic.

 

it is not your inalienable right to have a semi-automatic weapon. the founders who wrote the constitution had NO IDEA what a semi or automatic weapon was because they didn't exist. they wrote that as a member of a militia your right to keep and bear a weapon should not be infringed - referring to muskets and single shot rifles. you really don't think it deserves to be updated for 2012?

 

how do you feel about leviticus? do you have a wife or girlfriend? when she's menstruating do you keep her outside and burn the sheets? if not, you're not following the laws of an ancient text to the letter!

 

What you're missing though is why can't I turn that exact logic back on you with regards to voting rights? The response to any argument that you should have an ID to vote is "ZOMG! Voting is a right in the constitution and it cannot be infringed! Ever! No matter what!"

[Reddy]

The mother herself screwed up here. he was removed from school because she didn't like the way the school was treating him. there are records of him having 'difficulty', and not in the learning sense. There is a person on record saying that he used to babysit the kid when he was 8 or 9 and was told by the mom to never turn his back on him. She knew even then he was a potential time bomb, but did nothing. There were signs, but the mother covered them up.

thus she shouldn't have had the right to keep a gun in that house.

[EvilMonkey]

5 year old child: "But I WAAAANT it!"

 

Grown Ass American: "But I WAAAAANT it!"

 

pathetic.

 

it is not your inalienable right to have a semi-automatic weapon. the founders who wrote the constitution had NO IDEA what a semi or automatic weapon was because they didn't exist. they wrote that as a member of a militia your right to keep and bear a weapon should not be infringed - referring to muskets and single shot rifles. you really don't think it deserves to be updated for 2012?

 

how do you feel about leviticus? do you have a wife or girlfriend? when she's menstruating do you keep her outside and burn the sheets? if not, you're not following the laws of an ancient text to the letter!

They also had no idea what the hell the internet or TV was. Why should you get free speech on that? Let the government have it. They were referring to local newspapers. And you can't pick and choose which ammendments you want to interpret literally and which you wan to be 'living'.

[StrangeSox]

I'm just laughing at the flopping back and forth on the generalities here. Sometimes it is OK for municipalities to over ride, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is OK to listen to the constitution, others it isn't. Even when it is in direct contradiction of what was just said at times.

 

Well people need to be clear if they're arguing for the policy they'd ideally like to see regardless of the 2nd or policy that can actually be implemented with our current rulings on the 2nd. There isn't a contradiction if people are arguing for laws that would infringe the 2nd if they think the 2nd should be repealed/modified or that the recent court rulings were manifestly wrong and that there's no individual right to own whatever weapons you want.

[GoSox05]

With severely limited personal freedoms. Those governments are insanely intrusive with search and seizure laws for example. UK's government watches everything (and sadly, we're following that trend)

 

We passed the Patriot Act here and we have 300 million guns. Governments will pass intrusive laws if it's citizens have guns or not.

 

 

[Reddy]

What you're missing though is why can't I turn that exact logic back on you with regards to voting rights? The response to any argument that you should have an ID to vote is "ZOMG! Voting is a right in the constitution and it cannot be infringed! Ever! No matter what!"

because a lot more people agree that you should have the right to vote in this country than believe you should have the right to own an assault rifle. democracy remember?

[Reddy]

They also had no idea what the hell the internet or TV was. Why should you get free speech on that? Let the government have it. They were referring to local newspapers. And you can't pick and choose which ammendments you want to interpret literally and which you wan to be 'living'.

just like you can't with the bible right?

[StrangeSox]

The mother herself screwed up here. he was removed from school because she didn't like the way the school was treating him. there are records of him having 'difficulty', and not in the learning sense. There is a person on record saying that he used to babysit the kid when he was 8 or 9 and was told by the mom to never turn his back on him. She knew even then he was a potential time bomb, but did nothing. There were signs, but the mother covered them up.

 

Yet this law abiding citizen was allowed to purchase multiple weapons and keep them unsecured in her home. Perhaps her ability to buy such weapons should be examined.

[StrangeSox]

Short of a constitutional amendment, I have yet to see any real valid change that could have been made to restrict the mother's purchase of the handguns. Even if a successful argument can be made about the assault weapons, there really isn't one that will stand up to constitutional muster for handguns. This is exactly what Chicago just learned the expensive way.

 

Court decisions have been overturned before and can be overturned again (e.g. Plessy), but you are right when you say that, under current law, a handgun ban likely is unconstitutional.