|
On January 18 2012 11:43 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? By definition, adhering strictly to a narrow point of view -- that the constitution has a divine character, i.e., somehow it is and it WILL be infallible in the future -- is an extreme position. Changes are part of growing up or dying down, this is true for individuals as well as societies.
This is why, when necessary, we make amendments to the constitution to better suit the time period in which it is applied. For example, we amended the constitution to allow women and minorities to vote. A strict constitutionalist does not necessarily believe that the constitution will always be infallible as it is. This is why you are mistaken when you make the assumption that adhering to the constitution demonstrates a "narrow point of view." The constitution can always be amended (with careful, thoughtful planning) if its scope is too narrow for its application.
|
On January 18 2012 12:21 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:43 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? By definition, adhering strictly to a narrow point of view -- that the constitution has a divine character, i.e., somehow it is and it WILL be infallible in the future -- is an extreme position. Changes are part of growing up or dying down, this is true for individuals as well as societies. This is why, when necessary, we make amendments to the constitution to better suit the time period in which it is applied. For example, we amended the constitution to allow women and minorities to vote. A strict constitutionalist does not necessarily believe that the constitution will always be infallible as it is. This is why you are mistaken when you make the assumption that adhering to the constitution demonstrates a "narrow point of view." The constitution can always be amended (with careful, thoughtful planning) if its scope is too narrow for its application.
Correct, it's not about adhering to the specific guidelines of a specific constitution that is so important and so highly valued by those in a free society, it is the purpose and intent behind a constitution to begin with, which is to restrain the power that a government has over it's citizens. A government essentially represents a monopoly on the use of force within society, and in order to maintain a free society we must severely restrict and restrain the conditions under which the government may exercise that power. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. are all established as restraints on the authority which the government may use towards the citizenry. Without such restrictions, and without an understanding of the importance and need for constitutions, the people will sell their guaranteed freedoms for lesser values, and the political elite will extend and abuse their power over the people.
Those who believe in liberty, who believe in basic human rights, should be supporting constitutions in any nation instead of disregarding them as "outdated and narrow pieces of paper." It is those pieces of paper which have protected so many freedoms for so many people for so many decades, and they should not be taken lightly.
|
On January 18 2012 12:14 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:21 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? I may be wrong but I think what he means is that basing your policy on a strict interpretation of a document that is hundreds of years old is an extreme way to govern in the 21st century. There is much to love in the US constitution but disregarding the fact that we don't live in the 18th century anymore is a tad extreme. The values expressed in the United States constitution were not and are not specific to any point in time. What I mean is that these values are still completely valid today, and these are the core fundamental values that should always be there, especially the values expressed in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not we are in the 18th century, the 21st century, or the 30th century, these are the values that must be protected. How old of a document the constitution is is completely irrelevant in determining its value. Old is not always bad. Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean it is outdated.
Yes but interpeting those values for a modern society is not so simple. That's the problem I have with "strict constitutionalists". The argument goes something along the lines of "the constitution says this so we must do this". Well that may be true but it doesn't make it right or relevant. In some ways it is similar to religion. You either accept being religious and follow its rules or you don't. You can't (well shouldn't really) be a part time christian. Similarly for being strict about the constitution.
I'm not denying that it has benefits, huge benefits. I just don't like people getting credit for just following what the constitution says. It is only relevant when interpeted for modern society. That is what is important.
|
On January 18 2012 12:33 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 12:14 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:21 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? I may be wrong but I think what he means is that basing your policy on a strict interpretation of a document that is hundreds of years old is an extreme way to govern in the 21st century. There is much to love in the US constitution but disregarding the fact that we don't live in the 18th century anymore is a tad extreme. The values expressed in the United States constitution were not and are not specific to any point in time. What I mean is that these values are still completely valid today, and these are the core fundamental values that should always be there, especially the values expressed in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not we are in the 18th century, the 21st century, or the 30th century, these are the values that must be protected. How old of a document the constitution is is completely irrelevant in determining its value. Old is not always bad. Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean it is outdated. Yes but interpeting those values for a modern society is not so simple. That's the problem I have with "strict constitutionalists". The argument goes something along the lines of "the constitution says this so we must do this". Well that may be true but it doesn't make it right or relevant. In some ways it is similar to religion. You either accept being religious and follow its rules or you don't. You can't (well shouldn't really) be a part time christian. Similarly for being strict about the constitution. I'm not denying that it has benefits, huge benefits. I just don't like people getting credit for just following what the constitution says. It is only relevant when interpeted for modern society. That is what is important.
I feel my latest post addresses those concerns adequately. By making amendments to the constitution when necessary we can keep it "up-to-date."
|
Honestly the main issues I see with strict constitutionalism is that there is no explicit Right to Privacy. And there really should be especially in these days of the internet. It seems like rather than expliciting making it an amendment, we just sort of say the right to privacy is implied?
Also, I don't know if strict constitutionalists think that the 14th amendment means that state legislatures must adhere to the bill of rights. That seems to be an interpretation thing, but that's how it has been since we established the 14th amendment.
Yes but interpeting those values for a modern society is not so simple. That's the problem I have with "strict constitutionalists". The argument goes something along the lines of "the constitution says this so we must do this". Well that may be true but it doesn't make it right or relevant. In some ways it is similar to religion. You either accept being religious and follow its rules or you don't. You can't (well shouldn't really) be a part time christian. Similarly for being strict about the constitution.
For the most part, the constitution says "we can't do this." It's really more restricting government than granting government power.
|
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution.
|
On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution.
I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.
As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended.
So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment.
|
On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment.
Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?
However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution.
|
On January 18 2012 12:36 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 12:33 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 12:14 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:21 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? I may be wrong but I think what he means is that basing your policy on a strict interpretation of a document that is hundreds of years old is an extreme way to govern in the 21st century. There is much to love in the US constitution but disregarding the fact that we don't live in the 18th century anymore is a tad extreme. The values expressed in the United States constitution were not and are not specific to any point in time. What I mean is that these values are still completely valid today, and these are the core fundamental values that should always be there, especially the values expressed in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not we are in the 18th century, the 21st century, or the 30th century, these are the values that must be protected. How old of a document the constitution is is completely irrelevant in determining its value. Old is not always bad. Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean it is outdated. Yes but interpeting those values for a modern society is not so simple. That's the problem I have with "strict constitutionalists". The argument goes something along the lines of "the constitution says this so we must do this". Well that may be true but it doesn't make it right or relevant. In some ways it is similar to religion. You either accept being religious and follow its rules or you don't. You can't (well shouldn't really) be a part time christian. Similarly for being strict about the constitution. I'm not denying that it has benefits, huge benefits. I just don't like people getting credit for just following what the constitution says. It is only relevant when interpeted for modern society. That is what is important. I feel my latest post addresses those concerns adequately. By making amendments to the constitution when necessary we can keep it "up-to-date."
Up-to-date, like the Voting Rights Act?, I mean it took only 100 something years and an uncountable number of people who suffered needlessly. The Voting Rights Act BTW, was not the result of a careful planned change, but rather politicians were pressured into doing it, because of the extreme social unrest and subsequent activism which was threatening to destabilize society in profound ways, and most of those politicians weren't even strict constitutionalists.. heh. Up-to-date isn't fast enough apparently.
|
On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution.
You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place.
Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.)
|
On January 18 2012 13:22 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 12:36 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:33 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 12:14 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:21 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? I may be wrong but I think what he means is that basing your policy on a strict interpretation of a document that is hundreds of years old is an extreme way to govern in the 21st century. There is much to love in the US constitution but disregarding the fact that we don't live in the 18th century anymore is a tad extreme. The values expressed in the United States constitution were not and are not specific to any point in time. What I mean is that these values are still completely valid today, and these are the core fundamental values that should always be there, especially the values expressed in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not we are in the 18th century, the 21st century, or the 30th century, these are the values that must be protected. How old of a document the constitution is is completely irrelevant in determining its value. Old is not always bad. Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean it is outdated. Yes but interpeting those values for a modern society is not so simple. That's the problem I have with "strict constitutionalists". The argument goes something along the lines of "the constitution says this so we must do this". Well that may be true but it doesn't make it right or relevant. In some ways it is similar to religion. You either accept being religious and follow its rules or you don't. You can't (well shouldn't really) be a part time christian. Similarly for being strict about the constitution. I'm not denying that it has benefits, huge benefits. I just don't like people getting credit for just following what the constitution says. It is only relevant when interpeted for modern society. That is what is important. I feel my latest post addresses those concerns adequately. By making amendments to the constitution when necessary we can keep it "up-to-date." Up-to-date, like the Voting Rights Act?, I mean it took only 100 something years and an uncountable number of people who suffered needlessly. The Voting Rights Act BTW, was not the result of a careful planned change, but rather politicians were pressured into doing it, because of the extreme social unrest and subsequent activism which was threatening to destabilize society in profound ways, and most of those politicians weren't even strict constitutionalists.. heh. Up-to-date isn't fast enough apparently.
That's why I put "up-to-date" in quotations. It's not exactly the most accurate term. As for your concerns about the number of people who suffered needlessly to gain voting rights, I would say that their suffering was not needless, as you say. Unfortunately, in order for great change to be brought about, there needs to be an apparent need. If all of the social unrest and activism never happened, the need for change would not have been apparent, and changes would never have been made. (probably)
|
First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists
If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy 
That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example).
|
On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example).
How many people must die from car related accidents before there is an amendment banning motor vehicles?
There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.
Gun stats:
The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.
Perhaps the real reason there aren't stricter gun control laws has to do with the lack of sensationalism with regard to making decisions and the high value placed on personal freedoms and personal responsibility, as well as the understanding that the single most vital and inalienable right that any human being has in this world is the right to defend themselves and their loved ones from harm.
|
On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example).
Ah, Australia, the place where they ban the sale of video games that have too much gore, or where police can be killed.
Sounds wonderful.
You may be fine with that kind of government, but that is exactly the kind of government that the U.S. constitution is designed to prevent. If you like the fact that the Australian government has that kind of power, then by all means, enjoy it. However, there are those of us who absolutely detest the idea of being "controlled" by a government. A government is meant to represent its people, not control us. At least that is what Americans believe. If you believe otherwise, then by all means live elsewhere. I'm not saying that this is bad. You want a government with tighter restrictions so you can feel safer. That's fine. It's understandable.
|
On January 18 2012 14:01 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example). How many people must die from car related accidents before there is an amendment banning motor vehicles? There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.Gun stats: The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.Perhaps the real reason there aren't stricter gun control laws has to do with the lack of sensationalism with regard to making decisions and the high value placed on personal freedoms and personal responsibility, as well as the understanding that the single most vital and inalienable right that any human being has in this world is the right to defend themselves and their loved ones from harm.
Yes. This exactly. Probably a better response than mine. Thank you.
|
On January 18 2012 14:03 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example). Ah, Australia, the place where they ban the sale of video games that have too much gore, or where police can be killed. Sounds wonderful. You may be fine with that kind of government, but that is exactly the kind of government that the U.S. constitution is designed to prevent. If you like the fact that the Australian government has that kind of power, then by all means, enjoy it. However, there are those of us who absolutely detest the idea of being "controlled" by a government. A government is meant to represent its people, not control us. At least that is what Americans believe. If you believe otherwise, then by all means live elsewhere. I'm not saying that this is bad. You want a government with tighter restrictions so you can feel safer. That's fine. It's understandable.
I didn't realize American police were immortal.
I don't see the logical progression from 'ban of video games that have too much gore' to a government with tighter restrictions. It isn't even like the American media is particularly liberal, when was the last time you saw boobs on television?
I'm not necessary disagreeing with the premise that the USA has a less controlling government, but your examples seem to be somewhat irrelevant.
|
On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example).
There is no significant correlation or in another words no meaningful relationship between lax gun laws and increased or decreased instances of violent crime nationally speaking. Guns at least in the U.S. don't seem to either hurt or help the issue of crime.
Personally though between "strict constitutionalism" whatever that means and has never existed on high Court (not even Antonin Scalia has approached it in terms of judicial philosophy) and the preaching of your own posts I think I'm gonna be nauseous.
|
On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example).
People kill people, not guns. A statement I'm sure you've heard many times before.
I don't remember murder being invented when they released the musket. You know where we see mass murder when it comes to guns? In states that restrict the right to bear arms in public. Have you ever heard of someone going crazy and shooting 30 people dead in Arizona? No, because he'd shoot one person and everyone around him would draw their pistols and defend themselves.
The problem borders on state and federal laws. Because the lack of congruency among the two. Certain states medical marijuana is legal but you on a federal level it is a illegal and can take priority over such state laws. The constitution as a whole is fucked. The political system as a whole is sadly fucked. God could be elected for president but over 8 years you wouldn't see much change for the better. The system in place allows the president to do a lot of bad but not a whole lot of room to do any good. Half of the wars we engage in our enemies have been armed by us. Fucking Bush Senior armed the whole middle east. Not just guns, but planes, bombs, everything. Our presidents create more problems than anything else.
Change isn't going to come through a president, or a constitution change, but through a complete new beginning. The United States of America is so hell bent on fear mongering, bail outs, bribery, propaganda, etc etc. It's all about money.
You want to change America? I would love to have the funds to advertise and run commercials on every TV station. PURE ABSTENTION. Refuse to fuel this circus. "The power to vote" "You can change the world with your vote". All these bullshit slogans. Having the power to vote is like being a manager at Wendy's, you still leave work smelling like grease every day.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment.
For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example).
|
Canada11603 Posts
On January 18 2012 13:26 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution. You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place. Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.)
In regards to no gun control is so people can fight agains their government when the time comes- well how prepared do the citizens need to be? Because the weaponry of the past (muzzle load) is vastly different than modern automatic weapons that can be used to mow down students.
See I understand fighting over long guns- they're mostly used for hunting and that's mostly what I see the use for guns. I will concede handguns because it's America and so many are concerned about protection. But semi-automatic and automatic weapons? Where do you draw the line?
Because realistically, if your government does to turn, they would have to have control of the army. And I fail to see what isolated, unorganized, untrained citizen 'soldiers' will do against that. The value of citizen soldiers has been over-rated- part of the North American mythos. The British hated the colonist militias and preferred their Aboriginal allies because the militia had a tendency to run away. Training and battle experience is pretty key.
So what do the citizens need to protect themselves? Tanks? Jets? Missiles and control of the satellites for reconaissance? If the goal is to fight your government, there is such a preponderance of power that I don't really see how it would be possible. Better to stop it before it comes to arms and avoid potential vigilantism where some demagogue whips up heavily armed radicals against a perceived threat to liberties. (Perceived due to partisan rhetoric rather than an actual threat to liberties.)
People kill people, not guns. A statement I'm sure you've heard many times before.
This is such a straw man cliche. I don't know anyone that argues that guns have free agency and fire on their own accord. The question is what is acceptable fire-power in the hands of private citizens. Small Arms? Heavy weapons? Tanks? Where do you draw the line because each level up one individual has the capability of wreaking greater havoc before being stopped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
