|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 04 2018 05:09 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
In my personal experience, I've never met an American who supported keeping guns away from certain people based on any personal characteristic, besides mental illness and felony convictions.
It's one of their most sacred tenets. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed.
Americans don't always practice what they preach. Like everyone else in the world.
|
United States24690 Posts
On September 04 2018 05:09 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
It's one of their most sacred tenets. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed.
Just in case you were not aware, the U.S. Constitution is not divine and the government can change or add on to it via the amendment process. The second amendment can be fully repealed that way. The odds of it happening in the short term are of course very low, but let's not misrepresent the current situation.
|
On September 04 2018 07:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2018 05:09 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
It's one of their most sacred tenets. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed. Just in case you were not aware, the U.S. Constitution is not divine and the government can change or add on to it via the amendment process. The second amendment can be fully repealed that way. The odds of it happening in the short term are of course very low, but let's not misrepresent the current situation.
he has a point. any argument that the second amendment is outdated and should be revised is slammed by most gun enthusiasts because in their eyes the second amendment should be untouchable. its pretty much considered blasphemy to think that you should take away their rights as granted to them by their forefathers.
|
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws.
|
Good luck changing the second amendment. I dont see that happening anytime soon. Especially not with the fairly large anti government sentiments in america.
|
I already know that i am not gonna change anything about laws in the US. I don't even live there.
But it is necessary to mention that "can it be done" and "should it be done" are two different questions.
|
On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws.
Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth?
That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it?
This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution.
"The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments.
|
United States24690 Posts
On September 04 2018 14:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2018 07:11 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2018 05:09 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
It's one of their most sacred tenets. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed. Just in case you were not aware, the U.S. Constitution is not divine and the government can change or add on to it via the amendment process. The second amendment can be fully repealed that way. The odds of it happening in the short term are of course very low, but let's not misrepresent the current situation. he has a point. any argument that the second amendment is outdated and should be revised is slammed by most gun enthusiasts because in their eyes the second amendment should be untouchable. its pretty much considered blasphemy to think that you should take away their rights as granted to them by their forefathers.
I don't disagree, but keep in mind that usually the argument isn't "let's discuss ways we can revise the second amendment in the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted, recognizing that times have changed." More so it's "let's implement law X to help with a gun-related problem in America," "that would contradict the second amendment," "stop hiding behind the second amendment." Many people start from a position of the second amendment being mostly or fully repealed when discussing what other legal changes they want, rather than focusing on what act of congress would be needed and why it would work.
|
On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments.
To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress.
Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment.
|
On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment.
Do you think the first admenment applies to websites?Twitter? Our forefathers didn't have computers. That particular argument it's extremely insipid.
I don't want to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but I will say that if I was an american I would not give much thought to someones arguments if they started by saying the constitution is not important.
|
On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment.
Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution
|
On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution
Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone?
|
On September 05 2018 04:34 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2018 14:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 04 2018 07:11 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2018 05:09 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
It's one of their most sacred tenets. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed. Just in case you were not aware, the U.S. Constitution is not divine and the government can change or add on to it via the amendment process. The second amendment can be fully repealed that way. The odds of it happening in the short term are of course very low, but let's not misrepresent the current situation. he has a point. any argument that the second amendment is outdated and should be revised is slammed by most gun enthusiasts because in their eyes the second amendment should be untouchable. its pretty much considered blasphemy to think that you should take away their rights as granted to them by their forefathers. I don't disagree, but keep in mind that usually the argument isn't "let's discuss ways we can revise the second amendment in the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted, recognizing that times have changed." More so it's "let's implement law X to help with a gun-related problem in America," " that would contradict the second amendment," "stop hiding behind the second amendment." Many people start from a position of the second amendment being mostly or fully repealed when discussing what other legal changes they want, rather than focusing on what act of congress would be needed and why it would work.
I can't say I've observed that pheonomenon much; especially since second amendment jurisprudence has, iirc, had considerable change over time, esp in regards to the degree to which it's an individual right. In some cases simply reverting to prior 2nd amendment standards would allow a pertinent change. and really there's such a huge number of changes that are compatible with the 2nd amendment anyways I can't imagine it being a problem unless it starts with one side cherry picking cases of idiots proposing extreme rules that do violate the 2nd.
unrelatedly, I continue to find it odd how the preamble to the 2nd amendment looks demonstrably false; which makes the entire thing seem weird.
|
On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone?
I see what you're saying, but I think the stakes are lower there. Somebody tweeting something rude and getting in trouble is trivial compared to the idea of getting shot and killed
|
On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone?
We can analyze the first amendment and say "it's still a good idea despite changing times" while simultaneously analyze the second and say that "Because of changing times it is no longer a good idea". Just because one part of the constitution needs rework doesn't mean you need to throw out the entire thing. This isn't a process that should only be done once either, it needs to be a continuous process.
|
On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone?
It does not. The first admendment only applies to government. Otherwise how could the Trump administration attempt to remove the principle of net neutrality, without immediately being shut down? I'm not even American and I know this. You are, and yet... Oh btw USA is not the oldest democracy, not by a long shot. When did blacks or women get the vote in USA? What's the point you are trying to make anyways?
|
United States24690 Posts
On September 05 2018 05:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 04:34 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2018 14:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 04 2018 07:11 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2018 05:09 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
It's one of their most sacred tenets. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed. Just in case you were not aware, the U.S. Constitution is not divine and the government can change or add on to it via the amendment process. The second amendment can be fully repealed that way. The odds of it happening in the short term are of course very low, but let's not misrepresent the current situation. he has a point. any argument that the second amendment is outdated and should be revised is slammed by most gun enthusiasts because in their eyes the second amendment should be untouchable. its pretty much considered blasphemy to think that you should take away their rights as granted to them by their forefathers. I don't disagree, but keep in mind that usually the argument isn't "let's discuss ways we can revise the second amendment in the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted, recognizing that times have changed." More so it's "let's implement law X to help with a gun-related problem in America," " that would contradict the second amendment," "stop hiding behind the second amendment." Many people start from a position of the second amendment being mostly or fully repealed when discussing what other legal changes they want, rather than focusing on what act of congress would be needed and why it would work. I can't say I've observed that pheonomenon much; especially since second amendment jurisprudence has, iirc, had considerable change over time, esp in regards to the degree to which it's an individual right. In some cases simply reverting to prior 2nd amendment standards would allow a pertinent change. and really there's such a huge number of changes that are compatible with the 2nd amendment anyways I can't imagine it being a problem unless it starts with one side cherry picking cases of idiots proposing extreme rules that do violate the 2nd. unrelatedly, I continue to find it odd how the preamble to the 2nd amendment looks demonstrably false; which makes the entire thing seem weird.
That's true that there have been big shifts in how SCOTUS interprets the second amendment, and laws can change a lot (in terms of what is viable) based on that interpretation change without any change in wording of the amendment. The issue here is it's hard to appropriately generalize what arguments are being made when others respond with "that would violate the second amendment." I still have reservations about blaming those who support the current interpretation of the second amendment as being primarily the ones who are not being reasonable regarding the amendment.
In the spirit of the overall purpose of this thread.... have we ever actually had a discussion here about what the original purpose of the second amendment was? Does the community within this thread generally agree on that? Is that purpose no longer applicable to today's society? If so, why?
|
On September 05 2018 07:53 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 05:08 zlefin wrote:On September 05 2018 04:34 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2018 14:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 04 2018 07:11 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2018 05:09 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
It's one of their most sacred tenets. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed. Just in case you were not aware, the U.S. Constitution is not divine and the government can change or add on to it via the amendment process. The second amendment can be fully repealed that way. The odds of it happening in the short term are of course very low, but let's not misrepresent the current situation. he has a point. any argument that the second amendment is outdated and should be revised is slammed by most gun enthusiasts because in their eyes the second amendment should be untouchable. its pretty much considered blasphemy to think that you should take away their rights as granted to them by their forefathers. I don't disagree, but keep in mind that usually the argument isn't "let's discuss ways we can revise the second amendment in the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted, recognizing that times have changed." More so it's "let's implement law X to help with a gun-related problem in America," " that would contradict the second amendment," "stop hiding behind the second amendment." Many people start from a position of the second amendment being mostly or fully repealed when discussing what other legal changes they want, rather than focusing on what act of congress would be needed and why it would work. I can't say I've observed that pheonomenon much; especially since second amendment jurisprudence has, iirc, had considerable change over time, esp in regards to the degree to which it's an individual right. In some cases simply reverting to prior 2nd amendment standards would allow a pertinent change. and really there's such a huge number of changes that are compatible with the 2nd amendment anyways I can't imagine it being a problem unless it starts with one side cherry picking cases of idiots proposing extreme rules that do violate the 2nd. unrelatedly, I continue to find it odd how the preamble to the 2nd amendment looks demonstrably false; which makes the entire thing seem weird. That's true that there have been big shifts in how SCOTUS interprets the second amendment, and laws can change a lot (in terms of what is viable) based on that interpretation change without any change in wording of the amendment. The issue here is it's hard to appropriately generalize what arguments are being made when others respond with "that would violate the second amendment." I still have reservations about blaming those who support the current interpretation of the second amendment as being primarily the ones who are not being reasonable regarding the amendment. In the spirit of the overall purpose of this thread.... have we ever actually had a discussion here about what the original purpose of the second amendment was? Does the community within this thread generally agree on that? Is that purpose no longer applicable to today's society? If so, why?
The thread is long, I'm sure we've had discussions about that, though they'd represent a small % of the total. There was not a thread consensus from what little I can vaguely recall. Hard to tell if it's applicable today without specifying which of the possible original purposes one is talking about. By some interpretations the purpose at the time wouldn't have been applicable back then either, let alone now. But I'm certainly up for such a discussion.
|
We, did and as far as I can remember we all got hung over the meaning of a comma on something about a militia. For several pages. And no-one was any wiser as to what the founding fathers or anybody else meant. What is in a comma? That which we call a comma by any other punctuation would be just as cyrptic.
|
On September 05 2018 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone? It does not. The first admendment only applies to government. Otherwise how could the Trump administration attempt to remove the principle of net neutrality, without immediately being shut down? I'm not even American and I know this. You are, and yet... Oh btw USA is not the oldest democracy, not by a long shot. When did blacks or women get the vote in USA? What's the point you are trying to make anyways?
President Donald Trump is a staunch defensor of free speech despite leftist propaganda:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +even for fake news like CNN
Back to the point:
My point is that "people had worse guns back then" is an incredibly stupid argument.
If you say "we can save lives by regulating gun access" then that's a fair argument. Disregarding the constitution is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
