Constitutions (2nd Amendment/Gun control debate)

Do you feel your government has secretly violated it's constitution through certain laws or actions? (NSA stuff)

Heh. It's already pretty good that the American constitution is so closely consulted on a day to day basis and it's good enough that it's violated only "secretly". The Constitution of the People Republic of China guarantees next to ALL the rights but it's not really meaningful as a guideline as there's no body to enforce it.

More to come. I thought about either responding in full now or next morning and I guess this is my compromise :P

I think a lot of people forget it was written 200 years ago, and a lot has changed. I think I remember there was something saying you can add more or subtract some. Gov class was a while ago.Also I believe rights need to be limited, imagine if we had freedom of everything, it would be a mess.
As for Gun Contol, it's a very debatable topic. Here in Washington state, you can just buy some big guns from someones car trunk. I'm not sure if I agree with strict background checks, I mean once the gun is out there it can be stolen, borrowed, accessed without a check of whos using the weapon. I mean I guess if it was a legal sale (Dad selling his gun to his cousin), the buyer would have to go register the weapon in his name, and it could be a crime to not do so. I guess that makes sense.

Yeah, do we really need to own all these big guns? Hunting and Self Defense don't need them, their used for killing people in wars or mass shootings, no other use than that. But I have heard they are fun. so I guess have special shooting ranges where you can use one, but I guess you can shoot the place up. Limiting Ammo is eh.
Concealed weapons.. I could agree. What if you get in a fight and you have a gun. You're likley to use it without thinking, but to that agree the police can't always be there. Think of it this way, school bullying. You're told to tell a teacher and not do anything but that. But if you get the teacher instead of doing it yourself it could get worse/dead. So I guess maybe stricter on the concealed weapons, anger management, ect.

countryemo said:

I think a lot of people forget it was written 200 years ago, and a lot has changed. I think I remember there was something saying you can add more or subtract some. Gov class was a while ago.Also I believe rights need to be limited, imagine if we had freedom of everything, it would be a mess.

Click to expand...

Unlike many other national constitutions, the United States Constitution was specifically written to stand the test of time. We didn't need any other amendments other than the Bill of Rights, as all that did was open up our constitution to be rewritten by fascists. Is that not fascist in itself?

I support the 2nd Amendment. First of all, we don't need GUN control in this country. We need NUT control! It's never the responsible gun owners that do anything horrible. And no matter how many backround checks or fences we have to cross or hoops we have to jump through, that won't stop a NUT from stealing/taking a gun and doing something terrible. Criminals don't follow laws anyway.

The US Constitution was meant to be a "living document" or whatever the term is, subject to changes as needed. So even if you think that what matters most in American law is what the founding fathers wanted, what they wanted was for the Constitution to change with it and not become stagnant.

As far as I know not all modern countries even have that kind of system where a single set of rules stay in place forever unless changed, like in the UK which (I believe) periodically does a spring cleaning of their laws.

As much as I believe that there are certain rights that shouldn't be infringed, I wonder if having a rather short, vague set of rules is the best thing to have as the pinnacle of lawmaking in a country. It creates a kind of orthodoxy that makes it hard to change with the times.

Ehh all this talk about what the Founding Fathers meant and what the Constitution is supposed to be - none of it matters in the face of sheer power. It doesn't matter who meant what, to me, all that matters is what one is willing to do about it. If I was a politician in the United States, I couldn't care less about what the Constitution is or isn't supposed to be. I'll still be selling my vision the best I could. If a policy is "constitutionally conservative" then I'll justify it on the basis of constitution. If a policy is goes against the Constitution, I'll argue that the Constitution is archaic and not up to date. At the end of the day, I'll say whatever works best for me.

O07_eleven said:

Question time! :)
-What do you think of this issue? (changing of the 2nd or any amendments, is it necessary, how, and perhaps why)
-Are there points of your constitution that are silly and need changing?
-Do you feel your government has secretly violated it's constitution through certain laws or actions? (NSA stuff)

Click to expand...

1: I believe that some change of the 2nd amendment is needed, or at least laws need to be put into place with stricter background checks and less ammo capacity and such are needed. No matter how any laws and amendments are put into place, there will still be criminals who won't think of purchasing a gun legally or following laws before they go and shoot some people, but if you take away some guns that have high ammo capacity and are designed for killing, it will definitely help.
2: ^
3: Yes, but what government hasn't disobeyed the rules from time to time? No one is perfect and government officials are no exception. (For sure)

O07_eleven said:

Question time! :)
-What do you think of this issue? (changing of the 2nd or any amendments, is it necessary, how, and perhaps why)
-Are there points of your constitution that are silly and need changing?
-Do you feel your government has secretly violated it's constitution through certain laws or actions? (NSA stuff)

Click to expand...

1. See below

2. I do think the constitution does need some rewriting in order to reflect on modern times in order to clear things up and alleviate all these debates. For example, I'm pretty damn sure the second amendment guarantees the average citizen the right to own a firearm, even semi-automatic ones (ironically, handguns are responsible for most violent gun crime and yet public enemy number one is always the AR-15 or something similar to it), yet people still argue otherwise. Unfortunately, there isn't a single soul I'd entrust the responsibility of rewriting the Constitution to. Not even myself.

3. If the NSA stuff is anything to go by, then yes. The unfortunate thing about government is that it never has and probably never will work with the best interests of the people in mind; it's either appealing to the interests of the party, lobbyists, or it's treated as a mere job instead of a public responsibility. It is also inherently coercive, which generally flies in the face of liberty.

BlahISuck said:

Ehh all this talk about what the Founding Fathers meant and what the Constitution is supposed to be - none of it matters in the face of sheer power. It doesn't matter who meant what, to me, all that matters is what one is willing to do about it. If I was a politician in the United States, I couldn't care less about what the Constitution is or isn't supposed to be. I'll still be selling my vision the best I could. If a policy is "constitutionally conservative" then I'll justify it on the basis of constitution. If a policy is goes against the Constitution, I'll argue that the Constitution is archaic and not up to date. At the end of the day, I'll say whatever works best for me.

Click to expand...

Except in the US we're all taught at a young age about how special the Constitution is, how we're the first real democracy, how the founding fathers were great thinkers, etc. To say there's a problem with the Constitution publicly is like admitting you're an atheist or gay. Some politicians can do it if they're in certain parts of the country, but in a lot of places you'd be shooting yourself in the foot.

Of course what you suggest is the better approach since it would cut through some of the bull and get into matters of what is and isn't good policy. That's part of why I'm waffling on the whole idea of whether it's best to have a constitution at all.

CarcharOdin said:

3. If the NSA stuff is anything to go by, then yes. The unfortunate thing about government is that it never has and probably never will work with the best interests of the people in mind; it's either appealing to the interests of the party, lobbyists, or it's treated as a mere job instead of a public responsibility. It is also inherently coercive, which generally flies in the face of liberty.

Click to expand...

^This.

@OP

I'll NEVER vote for you for president. Why? Because like most people on here, you favor taking away guns from the people while still allowing law enforcement and the feds to use guns. This is WRONG.

Why is this wrong?

As I said in another thread - the Founding Fathers believed in the Right to Revolution. That is, a government should let its citizens change it if they find it wrong - and if the government refuses to do so, all manner of revolution is justified.

So, if you want to change the second amendment, it should be changed to this:

"A well-regulated militia is essential to the peace and prosperity of a nation and its citizens. However, if a militia is deemed harmful to its citizens, the citizens themselves have the right to change or disband said militia in order to eliminate the harmful parts of the militia. At this time and by this regard, the citizens will have the right to bear arms. In addition, a citizen may evoke their right to bear arms in order to protect their own lives and the lives of other citizens if a militia over them is not able to protect them at any point.

By the above, a militia's main interest is in aiding its citizens. If ever the government(s) over the citizens become harmful to the citizens in any form, it is both the right and duty of the militia to protect the citizens' interests. In order to protect the citizens and their rights, the militia must not enforce lethal action upon a citizen unless absolutely necessary - no matter said crime of citizen. In addition, violent action is not justified upon any citizen if they are neither accused of a crime nor a danger to others.

The policies and rights detailed in this Amendment shall not be infringed."


By this, threat of military action will keep the government from doing anything against the desires of the citizens, which decreases terrorist activity exponentially. Also, in order for those times when the right to bear arms is justified to be a thing, the people will have the ability to KEEP arms - and then only BEAR those arms at said times. At the same time, the people can dismantle the militia if it is harmful to them and recreate it to better protect them and their rights. So, if the government finds ANY way of bypassing the power the military - and by that, the citizens - has over it, the citizens can change the military (and law enforcement, etc) to counter the bypass.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/23/boehner-more-people-will-lose-insurance-obamacare/

Obamacare goes against the liberty of individuals - that alone may not be unconstitutional, but it DOES go against the core ideals of the nation since the very beginning.

In addition, 100,000s of people PER STATE are going to lose ALL of their health insurance and they won't be able to get any new insurance since Obamacare isn't allowing it.

--

I'm sick and tired of people praising Obamacare when they aren't even looking at the properly collected data showing how many problems it's been causing.

There are many jobs throughout the nation that come WITH health insurance automatically, so this isn't just an issue affecting individuals - it affects businesses everywhere as well.

And per typical Obama NO ONE is being given enough details about the plan and its contents to predict what they should do as it rolls around - which means both people and businesses are going into turmoil without any explanation as to WHY.


The Republicans, being businessman for the most part, understood this and THAT is why they denied Obamacare - because Obama is being an absolute bunghole and isn't releasing enough information about Obamacare for ANYONE to deal with the changes without being thrown into the jaws of death.


So next time you think it's a great idea for government to handle our health insurance - which, by the way, means life and death in this terrible economy - think again.

We wouldn't need revolution in the first place if we operated under Direct Democracy. However, we don't. We operate under Representative Democracy, which means if our Representatives don't actually represent our interests - but instead, their own - then the system fails. Whenever a nation fails, it's time to change it. Period.

And we ALWAYS need violence to counter violence if the non-violent option fails. Just standing in the way of a gun, talking someone down, won't automatically have them NOT shoot you. They could very well kill you regardless, and you could have averted it if you shot them first.

#logic

Yeah the question of "needing" violence is moot because it's clear that groups always have and always will resort to violence if they perceive that's what's needed. It's just a part of human nature. I think a more pertinent question would be whether a certain political system gives groups the ability to affect it or vent out their angers without resorting to violence. When these tensions or disagreements are considered to be expressed "in" the political system, they become institutionalized - in a way part of the system. When this happens, the act of protesting and other non-violent options become more satisfactory in themselves, and I feel that people are deterred from violence because it becomes "appropriate" to be peaceful and not rebel. Yes, the liberal way of doing things is able to pacify the wrath of the people. While in some instances it allows changes to occur more easily, in others it can modulate changes and prevent people from fighting even before it begins.

Of course, none of what I said here is verifiable nor deniable, but at least there's a logic to it.

You DID read the whole thing about the boy getting shot, didn't you? The police didn't use tasers, riot gear, bean bags, or water hoses before they shot him down multiple times. They just shot him - as the FIRST measure.

And when did I say the police or military were bad? I never said that. I said the government is bad. I was, in my previous post, referring more to citizens being able to shoot the criminal first before the criminal shot them, but if you want to bring the police into it then here we go: The police "protect and serve" the government BEFORE the people. They should protect the people BEFORE the government.

That keeps the government from using power against the citizens to an unreasonable extent and keeps the citizens from ever needing guns against the government - as the police and military use the guns FOR them.

See what I mean?

Basically we have the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves over the government over other people. Yet The government wants more control by taking away out last protection from them. They say they'll keep us safe but I was once robbed in front of an off duty police officer who did nothing. If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed.
And to all the people who says guns kill people and need to be outlawed...then by that logic so should knives, pressure cookers, chains, cars, baseball bats, water, pillows, stairs, and hands. All of those kill people too. The government wants to control all of our lives.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist to create a possibility of revolution. No state allows people that, no legal order creates the possibility of its own destruction. Revolution is outlawed by default since it aims to disrupt and overthrow the current order.

Besides, guns don't need to be legal for people to use them in an act against the government. Smuggling exists.

Personally I'm against civilians carrying guns because I don't want a random schmuck shooting at me because I rubbed him the wrong way. Because that's what happens when you give people a sense of empowerment. Other things can be used to kill people, yes, but a gun's primary function is to harm, which is not the case with the other things.

Water Gym Leader said:

Basically we have the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves over the government over other people. Yet The government wants more control by taking away out last protection from them. They say they'll keep us safe but I was once robbed in front of an off duty police officer who did nothing. If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed.
And to all the people who says guns kill people and need to be outlawed...then by that logic so should knives, pressure cookers, chains, cars, baseball bats, water, pillows, stairs, and hands. All of those kill people too. The government wants to control all of our lives.

Click to expand...

"If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed."

If you had a gun, the robber might have pulled out a weapon as well - what then? You've just escalated the problem to one where someone has to die. I would much rather leave them too it and call the police.

FYI - Off duty police officer is off duty. No radio for backup and no legal cover.

Water Gym Leader said:

And to all the people who says guns kill people and need to be outlawed...then by that logic so should knives, pressure cookers, chains, cars, baseball bats, water, pillows, stairs, and hands. All of those kill people too. The government wants to control all of our lives.

Click to expand...

A knife is useful for cooking and certain manual works. A pressure cooker is designed basically to cook food. Chains are supposed to be used to tie stuff. A car is a transportation device. A baseball bat has been created to be used to play baseball. Water allows us to stay alive. A pillow is helpful to sleep. Stairs allow us to have two-story houses. Hands come by default and are used for everything.

A gun is a machine designed to kill whose only possible utility is killing.

The point is, to drown someone, you need to hold him one-on-one. Same goes for almost half the stuff you described. Using a car to kill someone is either way more expensive or involves stealing, and is much more difficult to make it work- the person can jump out the way. A gun only requires you to point at someone and pull a trigger from far away. No need to expose yourself, no need to fight, small chance of failing and even if you don't kill them , you'll cause very serious damage. In movies, you don't see villains saying "Move and we'll go and try to choke you with a pillow!" for a reason.

I stand by my idea: guns should be controlled like cars. Require a training course, a permit, register everything on the way. Nothing more, nothing less.

Water Gym Leader said:

Basically we have the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves over the government over other people. Yet The government wants more control by taking away out last protection from them. They say they'll keep us safe but I was once robbed in front of an off duty police officer who did nothing. If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed.
And to all the people who says guns kill people and need to be outlawed...then by that logic so should knives, pressure cookers, chains, cars, baseball bats, water, pillows, stairs, and hands. All of those kill people too. The government wants to control all of our lives.

Click to expand...

No, the second amendment in its original context dealt with the state's individual rights vs federal authority, it's a leftover from the period of time where we were trying to work out all the kinks in the duel-federalist system we enjoy now, trying to reconcile individualistic, factious thinking at a state level with a unified federal identity. It was primarily southern statist blowhards, deathly afraid that the continental army and the feds would become another monarchy and suppress individual state rights - you know, like the right to enslave people. Best way to counter that threat is to have state run, state funded militias, loyal only to a particular state and its Governor. You have to remember in this time period, the U.S. was still very very sectarian - people from Virginia called themselves Virginians first and foremost, not Americans. Not just yet, anyway. They did not think about national identity in the same way we did. So the second amendment is essentially the southern elite's paranoia in the form of a constitutional amendment. (mind you it was an amendment, it was added later)

AzuGazer said:

Guns are useful for stopping arguments and fights even before and during. just aim at the sky. it's mere presents will stop anything. they are also useful for announcing the start of something to competitors and audience. you know, start guns. they are even useful for stopping people in their track without intended bloodshed. just some electricity. Like Taser guns. There is also a BB gun with is used for whatever.

i really do think there should be more gun control... just i can't think of how much because im not sure how much there is right now.

Click to expand...

They're also useful for stopping arguments and fights violently after they escalate, usually involving caps blasted up someone's ass. Tasers aren't weapons, neither are start guns.

Dual-use-thus-equivalent arguments are overdone.