Members nightflameauto Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by marshallnoise Sure, so pass an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Do it the way it was intended. Or is the methodology too dated as well? There is nothing in the Constitution that needs to be changed. It is the single, last best hope on Earth for the United States to continue to prosper. And I must add, it HAS to be tag teamed with the Declaration of Independence for you to even begin to understand WHY the Constitution was drafted in the manner it was. This is not, nor has it ever been, true. The Constitution in its original form, just like today, needs constant reassessment in current context, and in some cases needs modified, amended, or altered. As you state, the methodology is in place for this already. If the founders had intended it to be used as an absolute last authority there would be no method in place to alter it. I'm surprised by your utter faith in that piece of paper seeing as how often you argue against having any faith at all in any level of our government outside of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Phrophus The constitution was also drafted in a way that would enable its evolution. I agree, but having the actions of a few lunatics take away one of constitutional rights is not evolution. We should not allow our constitution to be held hostage by a very few mass murderers, that is awful. There is certainly a need to discuss these cases and figure out what can be done to prevent future incidents, but removing rights from law abiding people is not the way to do it, IMHO. We need to figure out ways to increase accountability and security without any bans or extreme restrictions on gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nightflameauto Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by guitarbilly74 I agree, but having the actions of a few lunatics take away one of constitutional rights is not evolution. We should not allow our constitution to be held hostage by a very few mass murderers, that is awful. There is certainly a need to discuss these cases and figure out what can be done to prevent future incidents, but removing rights from law abiding people is not the way to do it, IMHO. We need to figure out ways to increase accountability and security without any bans or extreme restrictions on gun ownership. While I agree with this whole-heartedly, I think the post-911 version of the general US population would rather see rights stripped than discuss rational solutions because it gives the impression that something is being done. Discourse isn't doing something. And doing something is tantamount, whether it fixes the problem or not. How many times have we heard, "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE?" in the past couple weeks? Note, it's never said something RATIONAL must be done. Just something. I also find it sad how quickly the idea of addressing mental health issues disappeared from all the discourse. It was brought up briefly in a public way as something that should be addressed, then swept aside in a tidalwave of gun-control frothing. I the media and the people that soak their brains in it day in and day out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ron Burgandy Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 I've mentioned it to marshallnoise a few times but he refuses to believe he has a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nightflameauto Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy I've mentioned it to marshallnoise a few times but he refuses to believe he has a problem. and at the same time. I actually meant in general over the whole shooting disaster, but what you say has some merit too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by marshallnoise Sure, so pass an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Do it the way it was intended. Or is the methodology too dated as well? There is nothing in the Constitution that needs to be changed. It is the single, last best hope on Earth for the United States to continue to prosper. And I must add, it HAS to be tag teamed with the Declaration of Independence for you to even begin to understand WHY the Constitution was drafted in the manner it was. It's not too dated, but I'm not sure an amendment is necessary. The courts and the legislature can likely handle this issue without needing an amendment that would repeal the 2nd amendment, which I actually don't think anyone is trying to do. (I'm sure there is someone arguing for its repeal, but it's really not what I'm getting at). I think what I'm trying to say is that the 2nd amendment essentially codified the right to bear arms, but it does not say anything else, so courts and the legislature have had to (and continue to have to) fill in the blanks that were intentionally left. One of those blanks is what is meant by "arms". At the time of the constitution, there obviously wasn't such a variety of "arms" available, so it wasn't as big an issue. Now that "arms" could include everything from a pellet gun to an atomic bomb (excluding non-firearm types of arms for convenience), the question is a bit more serious. That's what the debate is as far as I can tell. It's essentially a further defining of what the 2nd amendment means. It's not an all or nothing debate. I'm not arguing for or against gun control. I don't know enough about the issue to come down one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DoubleBarrel Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Phrophus The constitution was also drafted in a way that would enable its evolution. It may be important to understand what the founders intended, but the founders' intentions are not the only considerations when interpreting the constitution. In other words, just because the founders thought "A" was a good idea doesn't mean that "A" is still a good idea. Show me where it says that in the Constitution please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ron Burgandy Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 When people refuse treatment we can't hold them against their will until they commit a crime. By then it's too late. Our constitution and constant need for absolute freedom places us between a rock and a hard place. We are torn on if we should even provide health care to people that don't have it, let alone mental healthcare. We can no longer fund proper education to all American children. We are ok with banning drugs but not alcohol and cigarettes. We can buy firearms with no documentation, paper trail or background check. We cannot use instinct to determine dangerous behavior for fear it would be abused.We've dug a deep hole. Everyone points at something that we can't fundamentally change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MetalHed Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by PurpleTrails It kills me when rural folks in the US go off on socialism, considering that a lot of them wouldn't have electric power or telephone service without the continued existence of out and out socialist programs that are subsidized by the citizenry at large. PurpleTrails, you clearly have a fully functioning frontal lobe, which makes you markedly different from the people you mention. The folks in the US who try to use the word "socialism" as a bad word are just flaunting their stupidity, as well as their blatant hypocrisy. Fact of the matter is that every single one of them has enjoyed the benefits of the socialistic institutions in our country. Public schools. Public roads and bridges. The police department. The fire department. Public trash removal. These are just a few examples of the socialistic institutions that they have enjoyed the benefits of every single day of their lives. If they really hated socialism, they would avoid these things at all costs. To enjoy those benefits, but then try to pretend that socialism is the devil, requires knuckle dragging stupidity coupled with a complete lack of decency. Anyone with anything resembling a conscience would recognize how utterly hypocritical this is, but when your brain has been rotted by decades of conservatard propaganda, making that connection is too hard. A couple hundred years of inbreeding doesn't help the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by nightflameauto While I agree with this whole-heartedly, I think the post-911 version of the general US population would rather see rights stripped than discuss rational solutions because it gives the impression that something is being done. Discourse isn't doing something. And doing something is tantamount, whether it fixes the problem or not. How many times have we heard, "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE?" in the past couple weeks? Note, it's never said something RATIONAL must be done. Just something. I also find it sad how quickly the idea of addressing mental health issues disappeared from all the discourse. It was brought up briefly in a public way as something that should be addressed, then swept aside in a tidalwave of gun-control frothing. I the media and the people that soak their brains in it day in and day out. Absolutely. I refuse to believe someone goes from totally normal to killing 30 children in one day. There had to be signs of a mental illness that were missed. Or most likely, placed under some PC label like "oh yeah, he's special in his own way" . This is one of the problems we have these days, we are so concerned about offending people we can't even call a creepy guy a {censored}ing creep. Can't say {censored} about it either. I think there is a HUGE amount of people out there who are {censored}ing time bombs and no one can say {censored} until it's too late. Then {censored} like that happens and they friends/families go... "yeah he's always been a loner, a bit weird" "why didn't you report him?" "report him to who? He didn't break any laws until this, he was just "weird"" so the "report him to who?" part would be a good first step towards a solution. Not report for punishment, but for diagnosis and treatment if the person is really that mentally sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ron Burgandy Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by DoubleBarrel Show me where it says that in the Constitution please Ummmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by DoubleBarrel Show me where it says that in the Constitution please It's fairly self-evident in the way the constitution is written, honestly. It's written in a very vague manner, which has to be interpreted unless you don't want the constitution to have any meaning whatsoever. I don't know that there is anything specific in the constitution that explicitly says anything to the effect that it should evolve (other than the amendment process), but it's a fairly meaningless document unless it gets interpreted and applied, which is where the courts come in. To actually understand the constitution, it's much more useful to read early Supreme Court opinions than the constitution, itself. Start with Marbury v. Madison. IIRC, this case will probably "show you" better than I could. I'm a bit rusty on this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by drewl When the Black Panthers started openly carrying weapons in marches, Reagan whipped out gun control legislature mighty fast. Originally Posted by The Anomaly Excellent! I never saw that, or thought of it, but true! From: http://townhall.com/columnists/walte...his/page/full/ Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery. There are a few civil rights leaders with a different vision. When President Barack Obama commented about the Trayvon Martin case, T. Willard Fair, president of the Urban League of Greater Miami, told The Daily Caller that "the outrage should be about us killing each other, about black-on-black crime." He asked rhetorically, "Wouldn't you think to have 41 people shot (in Chicago) between Friday morning and Monday morning would be much more newsworthy and deserve much more outrage?" Former NAACP leader Pastor C.L. Bryant said the rallies organized by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson suggest there is an epidemic of "white men killing black young men," adding: "The epidemic is truly black-on-black crime. The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men." I think it's pretty clear that blacks are well familiar with guns. I just don't think they want to advertise quite as much as the whitey gun nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Phrophus It's fairly self-evident in the way the constitution is written, honestly. It's written in a very vague manner, which has to be interpreted unless you don't want the constitution to have any meaning whatsoever. I don't know that there is anything specific in the constitution that explicitly says anything to the effect that it should evolve (other than the amendment process), but it's a fairly meaningless document unless it gets interpreted and applied, which is where the courts come in. To actually understand the constitution, it's much more useful to read early Supreme Court opinions than the constitution, itself. Start with Marbury v. Madison. IIRC, this case will probably "show you" better than I could. I'm a bit rusty on this stuff. That's all well and good.....except "the interpreters" can be manipulated. Obama has been a shining example that the Interpreters can be gotten to. Not only did he recently apply word game trickery(straight up lie to everyone's face as we knew it was a lie), but he's chompin at the bit to stack the deck. This "interpretation" you speak of is entirely partisan politics and dangerous, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DoubleBarrel Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Phrophus It's fairly self-evident in the way the constitution is written, honestly. It's written in a very vague manner, which has to be interpreted unless you don't want the constitution to have any meaning whatsoever. I don't know that there is anything specific in the constitution that explicitly says anything to the effect that it should evolve (other than the amendment process), but it's a fairly meaningless document unless it gets interpreted and applied, which is where the courts come in. To actually understand the constitution, it's much more useful to read early Supreme Court opinions than the constitution, itself. Start with Marbury v. Madison. IIRC, this case will probably "show you" better than I could. I'm a bit rusty on this stuff. So..............No, it's not in there And you have nothing to back up the prior statement at all. know why ???? Because the founding fathers didn't want the constitution messed with It is the bedrock foundation on which everything else is built. amendments were to be added if needed, but the intent was for the Constitution to stand as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DoubleBarrel Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Phrophus It's fairly self-evident in the way the constitution is written, honestly. It's written in a very vague manner, which has to be interpreted unless you don't want the constitution to have any meaning whatsoever. I don't know that there is anything specific in the constitution that explicitly says anything to the effect that it should evolve (other than the amendment process), but it's a fairly meaningless document unless it gets interpreted and applied, which is where the courts come in. To actually understand the constitution, it's much more useful to read early Supreme Court opinions than the constitution, itself. Start with Marbury v. Madison. IIRC, this case will probably "show you" better than I could. I'm a bit rusty on this stuff. So..............No, it's not in there And you have nothing to back up the prior statement at all. know why ???? Because the founding fathers didn't want the constitution messed with It is the bedrock foundation on which everything else is built. amendments were to be added if needed, but the intent was for the Constitution to stand as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ron Burgandy Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Stevetemp From: http://townhall.com/columnists/walte...his/page/full/ I think it's pretty clear that blacks are well familiar with guns. I just don't think they want to advertise quite as much as the whitey gun nuts. No one said blacks aren't familiar with guns or don't own/use them. We said if black people started joining the NRA and demanding unrestricted gun use that white people would change course. It was made tongue in cheek in case you missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ron Burgandy Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by DoubleBarrel So..............No, it's not in there And you have nothing to back up the prior statement at all. know why ???? Because the founding fathers didn't want the constitution messed with It is the bedrock foundation on which everything else is built. amendments were to be added if needed, but the intent was for the Constitution to stand as it is. You mean the amendment process and the fact we have a supreme court to interpr... Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members theAntihero Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 It kills me when rural folks in the US go off on socialism, considering that a lot of them wouldn't have electric power or telephone service without the continued existence of out and out socialist programs that are subsidized by the citizenry at large. Its not just a rural problem really, although i do also find it hilarious when you get a speach from someone about how bad the "guvbberment" is and they subsist on welfare or something similiar.Although for the record i do live in the country but i actually have solar power and a cell phone because of how inept both services can be up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members seajay Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by DoubleBarrel So..............No, it's not in there And you have nothing to back up the prior statement at all. know why ???? Because the founding fathers didn't want the constitution messed with It is the bedrock foundation on which everything else is built. amendments were to be added if needed, but the intent was for the Constitution to stand as it is. Holy {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by nightflameauto This is not, nor has it ever been, true. The Constitution in its original form, just like today, needs constant reassessment in current context, and in some cases needs modified, amended, or altered. As you state, the methodology is in place for this already. If the founders had intended it to be used as an absolute last authority there would be no method in place to alter it. I'm surprised by your utter faith in that piece of paper seeing as how often you argue against having any faith at all in any level of our government outside of it. I believe it's okay to have faith in the old timers...but this modern government? It's doesn't fill you with confidence about the concerns citizens. Talk about the Founding Father's not seeing the future.. I say the well knew weaponry would change. They were specialists. Not as dumb as people think politicians are these days. However...I don't think they saw how government could be so bloated perverted. I don't think they foresaw citizens laziness and greed for a free check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DoubleBarrel Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy You mean the amendment process and the fact we have a supreme court to interpr... Nevermind. Here I'll fix it so even your pathetic, twisted little brain can understand. Because the founding fathers didn't want the constitution messed with It is the bedrock foundation on which everything else is built. Amendments were to be added if needed, but the intent was for the Bill of Rights to stand as it is. Got it. It's like a house, and the Bill of Rights is the foundation. If you mess with it the whole house falls down. understand Skippy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy No one said blacks aren't familiar with guns or don't own/use them. We said if black people started joining the NRA and demanding unrestricted gun use that white people would change course. It was made tongue in cheek in case you missed it. Ah...my condescending meter twitched. I guess you missed my point, lol at the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DoubleBarrel Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by seajay Holy {censored}. Facts hurt when they slam you in the face don't they ????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members seajay Posted December 27, 2012 Members Share Posted December 27, 2012 Originally Posted by DoubleBarrel Facts hurt when they slam you in the face don't they ????????? I'll let you know, after you actually post some facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.