Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Feb 18, 2018 21:37:10 GMT -5
by Cass Sunstein The use of the Second Amendment, to block consideration of sensible gun control measures, is a national disgrace. And conservatives themselves have explained why this is true. For decades, conservatives have objected to the use of constitutional provisions as a political weapon, insisting that controversies should be resolved in democratic arenas instead. They have made this argument to oppose judicial recognition of the right to choose abortion; protection of same-sex marriage; creation of a rigid "wall" between church and state; and creation of new rights in the criminal justice system. Going even further, they have argued against the left's efforts to use the Constitution to block reasonable political debates - about religion, about privacy, about equality - that the justices have never settled. Bracket the question whether these arguments are always convincing. At a minimum, conservatives are right to raise the question whether the Constitution really does stop We the People, acting through our elected representatives, from addressing serious social problems in accordance with our values and our best judgments about the facts. Turn in this light to the Second Amendment, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Historians have long debated whether the Second Amendment provides any protection, at all, for the individual right to own guns. There are reasonable arguments both ways. For most of the 20th century, the firm consensus among federal judges - Republican or Democratic - was that it did not provide that protection. It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that it did. The justices were badly divided. Four members of the court agreed with the longstanding consensus. The majority opinion, joined by five justices, ruled that the Second Amendment does create an individual right of gun ownership. But the opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was modest and cautious. Justice Scalia's opinion did not come close to embracing the arguments made by those who invoke the Second Amendment as an all-purpose weapon against democratic efforts to prevent the murder of high-school kids. On the contrary, his opinion is full of permission slips for federal, state and local governments to act. In a crucial sentence, Justice Scalia wrote, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Justice Scalia also emphasized that the Second Amendment is restricted to weapons "in common use at the time." He added that the Constitution leaves government with many tools for combating the problem of handgun violence, including regulation. After the court's decision, lower courts have upheld numerous restrictions on the sale and ownership of guns. On dozens of occasions, the justices have declined to review such rulings, suggesting that they accept Justice Scalia's permission slips. It is true the precise meaning of the Second Amendment has yet to be settled. But no one can doubt the central point: There is a profound disconnect between the actual meaning of the Second Amendment, as it is understood by courts, and political uses of the Second Amendment, as it is invoked in federal and state legislatures, and as a basis for attacking politicians who are thinking in good faith about how best to save lives. Here's another way to put it. Many people claim to oppose sensible gun-control reforms on the ground that they "are for the Second Amendment." But everyone should be for the Second Amendment. The question is not whether to favor or oppose the Second Amendment, but which reforms, now acceptable under that amendment, should be enacted into law. We the People are entitled to ask and answer that question -- free from the would-be censorship of those who pound tables and purport to speak for the Second Amendment, but who actually have not the slightest interest in the Constitution of the United States. Bloomberg News Posted with permission from NJ.com www.rawstory.com/2018/02/nothing-2nd-amendment-prevents-sensible-gun-rules/
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 18, 2018 23:39:14 GMT -5
The usual doubletalk from gun control nazis. What they want is to "sensibly" disarm everyone but police and military.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 19, 2018 5:55:01 GMT -5
gun controls don't necessarily take away any ones guns .. most countries UK included have very reasonable rules in place on the owning and above all the keeping of weaponary by individuals and clubs .. perhaps Joseph... America should hold a national vote on the matter and stand or fall by the result ... now that would be the demorcratic way .. put it too the voter
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 19, 2018 5:57:38 GMT -5
The usual doubletalk from gun control nazis. What they want is to "sensibly" disarm everyone but police and military. you do buy into the politics of fear don't you ... what if what if.. what exactly are you afraid of that hasn't or isn't happening ? its one thing to be fearful of what is actually happening its entirely another to be fearful of what might happen under certain circumstances in the future do you have children or grandchildren ? an if so do you leave medication lying around for small children to play with ...and if not why not ? .. possibly because it would be dangerous for small ones to play with pills.... and yet people leave guns lying around where small children do access them, as well as any other person passing by so why is one thing considered more dangerous than another ? its not only in school killings that children needlessly die
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 19, 2018 11:35:17 GMT -5
The usual doubletalk from gun control nazis. What they want is to "sensibly" disarm everyone but police and military. you do buy into the politics of fear don't you ... what if what if.. what exactly are you afraid of that hasn't or isn't happening ? its one thing to be fearful of what is actually happening its entirely another to be fearful of what might happen under certain circumstances in the future do you have children or grandchildren ? an if so do you leave medication lying around for small children to play with ...and if not why not ? .. possibly because it would be dangerous for small ones to play with pills.... and yet people leave guns lying around where small children do access them, as well as any other person passing by so why is one thing considered more dangerous than another ? its not only in school killings that children needlessly die I hear this very often, that people (for whatever reason, leave guns around so that children can get them. I’m sure that there is someone who does this, but if so I have never met them. When I was a child guns were in the home environment but I cannot remember a time when they were ‘just laying around. In my years as a firearms instructor, I cannot remember a time when someone, just left their gun(s) laying around. As with any tool adults teach correct usage and care for guns to their children. Have stupid things occurred with the misuse of guns? Of course they have, and stupid things have happened with all sorts of tools.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 19, 2018 14:42:13 GMT -5
gun controls don't necessarily take away any ones guns .. most countries UK included have very reasonable rules in place on the owning and above all the keeping of weaponary by individuals and clubs .. perhaps Joseph... America should hold a national vote on the matter and stand or fall by the result ... now that would be the demorcratic way .. put it too the voter While it sounds reasonable, this has all been decided within the Constitution and by Court cases. To change that there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment If one could be drafted to meet that desire, it would take years for it to go through the ratification process, and then years of court cases would follow. It would be much simpler and faster to employ military Veterans (who need the work any way) to patrol and keep safe schools. They have been trained in the use of firearms and they are available right now. They could be made as a special unit of the county sheriff's office. A referendum vote suggested would not alter the Constitution. In addition such a suggestion is targeting the wrong thing as the Constitution does not give any right to any individual or group. In stead it recognizes preexisting individual rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms) and protects those rights.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Feb 19, 2018 16:56:04 GMT -5
gun controls don't necessarily take away any ones guns .. most countries UK included have very reasonable rules in place on the owning and above all the keeping of weaponary by individuals and clubs .. perhaps Joseph... America should hold a national vote on the matter and stand or fall by the result ... now that would be the demorcratic way .. put it too the voter While it sounds reasonable, this has all been decided within the Constitution and by Court cases. To change that there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment If one could be drafted to meet that desire, it would take years for it to go through the ratification process, and then years of court cases would follow. It would be much simpler and faster to employ military Veterans (who need the work any way) to patrol and keep safe schools. They have been trained in the use of firearms and they are available right now. They could be made as a special unit of the county sheriff's office. A referendum vote suggested would not alter the Constitution. In addition such a suggestion is targeting the wrong thing as the Constitution does not give any right to any individual or group. In stead it recognizes preexisting individual rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms) and protects those rights. It seems focused on protecting the rights of every nutjob to hold a personal arsenal and on NOT protecting the rights of people to go about their ordinary business without having to worry about wackos blowing them away. You know, most laws and government policies are a compromise between extremes. I don't support taking away guns; I support regulating guns. And the Constitution has been changed before; it's very tiresome hearing some Americans carry on about it in the same way as religious fundamentalists. It was drawn up a LONG time ago when things were very different. The world's moved on since then; isn't it about time the US at least entered the 19th century? (Prefably the 21st but small steps can lead to great things!)
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Feb 19, 2018 16:57:21 GMT -5
The usual doubletalk from gun control nazis. What they want is to "sensibly" disarm everyone but police and military. The usual doubletalk from pro-criminal Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 19, 2018 19:40:59 GMT -5
gun controls don't necessarily take away any ones guns .. most countries UK included have very reasonable rules in place on the owning and above all the keeping of weaponary by individuals and clubs .. perhaps Joseph... America should hold a national vote on the matter and stand or fall by the result ... now that would be the demorcratic way .. put it too the voter While it sounds reasonable, this has all been decided within the Constitution and by Court cases. To change that there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment If one could be drafted to meet that desire, it would take years for it to go through the ratification process, and then years of court cases would follow. It would be much simpler and faster to employ military Veterans (who need the work any way) to patrol and keep safe schools. They have been trained in the use of firearms and they are available right now. They could be made as a special unit of the county sheriff's office. A referendum vote suggested would not alter the Constitution. In addition such a suggestion is targeting the wrong thing as the Constitution does not give any right to any individual or group. In stead it recognizes preexisting individual rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms) and protects those rights. Men an tol, I just read the first post in this thread (Jessie put it up) and am wondering whether you bothered to read it all - right down to the last paragraphs. Scalia's comments are interesting and, if taken literally, not as rigid as some try to imply. Go take another look. Interpretation may be the answer.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 19, 2018 23:55:40 GMT -5
While it sounds reasonable, this has all been decided within the Constitution and by Court cases. To change that there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment If one could be drafted to meet that desire, it would take years for it to go through the ratification process, and then years of court cases would follow. It would be much simpler and faster to employ military Veterans (who need the work any way) to patrol and keep safe schools. They have been trained in the use of firearms and they are available right now. They could be made as a special unit of the county sheriff's office. A referendum vote suggested would not alter the Constitution. In addition such a suggestion is targeting the wrong thing as the Constitution does not give any right to any individual or group. In stead it recognizes preexisting individual rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms) and protects those rights. It seems focused on protecting the rights of every nutjob to hold a personal arsenal and on NOT protecting the rights of people to go about their ordinary business without having to worry about wackos blowing them away. You know, most laws and government policies are a compromise between extremes. I don't support taking away guns; I support regulating guns. And the Constitution has been changed before; it's very tiresome hearing some Americans carry on about it in the same way as religious fundamentalists. It was drawn up a LONG time ago when things were very different. The world's moved on since then; isn't it about time the US at least entered the 19th century? (Prefably the 21st but small steps can lead to great things!) I have tried this before, but have little expectation of understanding. So many try to express the words of the Constitution of the United States as something it is not. They see it as the definitive source of the rights of our people, it isn’t that but rather our defined government as detailed in the words of the Constitution of the United States. It is a contract among the States with each State having their own Constitution representing the people of that singular State. As part of that contract, a Bill of Rights comprised of 10 Articles was added as the first 10 Amendments to that Constitution. There are many more rights than are listed there, so why these and not others? Because these particular Amendments fill out the defining of the Constitution, that is the relationship between the federal national government and the State governments and the people and they do so using the rights of the individual. This emphasizes that by recognizing the individual as the source of Sovereignty. I’ll suggest that you are missing the point of the Constitution of the United States, it is to protect the rights of all. If some rights are to be minimized and controlled in some way, then that will have to pass through a court of law for that individual. Such as a person convicted of a felony and losing their right to vote and losing their right to be armed. As to regulating guns as opposed to taking them away. That says nothing. Some communities regulate guns by enacting laws that you can only have long guns, or you cannot take your gun out of your house and a few have even passed local laws that all adults must have a weapon. Regulating to one is a taking to another. Yes, the Constitution has been Amended in the past, 27 times in fact. During that process it is debated in the federal congress, and in the legislatures of each of the 50 States, and we can be sure it would be debated throughout the land, over, and over. I would predict that a Constitutional Amendment further restricting firearms ownership would never be ratified. Tiresome? Gee, that is so sad. It has worked for nearly 250 years, but it is tiresome to hear others talk about it. When it was written and ratified ‘things’ were certainly different, but not the relationships between the elements of government and the protection of individual rights. Some might consider that the pace of nations evolving might be more realistic if seen as the United States dragging the rest of the world into the future.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Feb 20, 2018 1:47:41 GMT -5
you do buy into the politics of fear don't you ... what if what if.. what exactly are you afraid of that hasn't or isn't happening ? its one thing to be fearful of what is actually happening its entirely another to be fearful of what might happen under certain circumstances in the future do you have children or grandchildren ? an if so do you leave medication lying around for small children to play with ...and if not why not ? .. possibly because it would be dangerous for small ones to play with pills.... and yet people leave guns lying around where small children do access them, as well as any other person passing by so why is one thing considered more dangerous than another ? its not only in school killings that children needlessly die I hear this very often, that people (for whatever reason, leave guns around so that children can get them. I’m sure that there is someone who does this, but if so I have never met them. When I was a child guns were in the home environment but I cannot remember a time when they were ‘just laying around. In my years as a firearms instructor, I cannot remember a time when someone, just left their gun(s) laying around. As with any tool adults teach correct usage and care for guns to their children. Have stupid things occurred with the misuse of guns? Of course they have, and stupid things have happened with all sorts of tools. You do not have to know people personally to realize many are careless with guns. I knew of 2 shootings that happened in Tennessee in the same year, when I lived there. In one, a woman accidentally shot herself with her husband's gun. She thought it was unloaded. She was alone but immediately called 911 and survived. In the other, some kids were playing with a gun their mother's boyfriend left in his holster. He had left it laying on a chair. They were 6 and 7 years old. They killed their babysitter with a shot to the head before she had even taken her coat off. Very sad. Over the years, I have heard of other accidents involving loaded guns so I know such things happen. Face it.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Feb 20, 2018 1:49:29 GMT -5
The usual doubletalk from gun control nazis. What they want is to "sensibly" disarm everyone but police and military. There is a long distance between that and allowing people to stockpile repeating rifles.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 20, 2018 4:09:35 GMT -5
you do buy into the politics of fear don't you ... what if what if.. what exactly are you afraid of that hasn't or isn't happening ? its one thing to be fearful of what is actually happening its entirely another to be fearful of what might happen under certain circumstances in the future do you have children or grandchildren ? an if so do you leave medication lying around for small children to play with ...and if not why not ? .. possibly because it would be dangerous for small ones to play with pills.... and yet people leave guns lying around where small children do access them, as well as any other person passing by so why is one thing considered more dangerous than another ? its not only in school killings that children needlessly die I hear this very often, that people (for whatever reason, leave guns around so that children can get them. I’m sure that there is someone who does this, but if so I have never met them. When I was a child guns were in the home environment but I cannot remember a time when they were ‘just laying around. In my years as a firearms instructor, I cannot remember a time when someone, just left their gun(s) laying around. As with any tool adults teach correct usage and care for guns to their children. Have stupid things occurred with the misuse of guns? Of course they have, and stupid things have happened with all sorts of tools. well where else are teenagers accessing the guns they use for shooting their fellow pupils if not for guns lying around ..... this particular case i understand the gun was kept under lock and key but some how the murderer also had a key[which he shouldn't have had] which clearly shows premeditation and not mental disturbance www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/09/deaths-of-children-are-the-most-devastating-effect-of-our-gun-culture-the-nra-has-no-idea-what-to-say-about-them/?utm_term=.d53a983fd5b1www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/25/us-accidental-gun-deaths-100-children-yearly
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 20, 2018 4:37:52 GMT -5
gun controls don't necessarily take away any ones guns .. most countries UK included have very reasonable rules in place on the owning and above all the keeping of weaponary by individuals and clubs .. perhaps Joseph... America should hold a national vote on the matter and stand or fall by the result ... now that would be the demorcratic way .. put it too the voter While it sounds reasonable, this has all been decided within the Constitution and by Court cases. To change that there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment If one could be drafted to meet that desire, it would take years for it to go through the ratification process, and then years of court cases would follow. It would be much simpler and faster to employ military Veterans (who need the work any way) to patrol and keep safe schools. They have been trained in the use of firearms and they are available right now. They could be made as a special unit of the county sheriff's office. A referendum vote suggested would not alter the Constitution. In addition such a suggestion is targeting the wrong thing as the Constitution does not give any right to any individual or group. In stead it recognizes preexisting individual rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms) and protects those rights. do you realise what your saying men ?..for a good man I do find you shortsighted on this matter your suggesting that ex service men and women be employed to keep school school children and their teachers safe from killers while they are on school/educational premises ... its unbelieveable that your suggesting appeasing the wrong doers and adding yet more guns into the mix you also talk about individual rights..... well how about the right to live .. how about the right to education without fear .. keeping and bearing arms is a very different matter than enabling murderers.. mass murderers killers and the criminal insane a militia any militia is drawn from individuals be they farmers or towns/city people was once necessary but now you have armed forces.. standing armed forces .. armed to the teeth .. so there is no requirement for an armed militia.. or for individuals to be armed and certainly not to the outrageous degrees of weaponry people do arm them selves with Golda Meir once said of the Palestinians they love death more than we love life ........
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 20, 2018 10:43:00 GMT -5
There is a long distance between that and allowing people to stockpile repeating rifles. Stockpiling only happens when threats are made to disarm the population. Every time there's talk about restricting "assault" weapons, there's a run on them. Way to go, liberals. Keep up the good work.
|
|