josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 17, 2016 9:42:44 GMT -5
if some whackos with automatic weapons managed to get into Congress and open fire, THEN we might hear them singing a different tune. Something similar to that has happened in the Capitol. Politicians have been murdered, including U.S. presidents. The Second Amendment is as popular today as it was in 1789, if not more so. Still, if you wish its repeal, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll get dozens of signatures on your petition.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jun 17, 2016 10:47:13 GMT -5
if some whackos with automatic weapons managed to get into Congress and open fire, THEN we might hear them singing a different tune. Something similar to that has happened in the Capitol. Politicians have been murdered, including U.S. presidents. The Second Amendment is as popular today as it was in 1789, if not more so. Still, if you wish its repeal, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll get dozens of signatures on your petition. I don't think anybody wants to gripe about the 2nd Amendment, but it needs to be translated as a part of the 21st century. Trying to make it relevant to the changes over the past 200 years needs people who are not bogged down with personal interests. Keep the 2nd Amendment. Get rid of the NRA.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 17, 2016 11:36:42 GMT -5
I don't think anybody wants to gripe about the 2nd Amendment, but it needs to be translated as a part of the 21st century. No, it doesn't. You don't seem to get it. Ownership of firearms is not a privilege. It's a RIGHT. There are those who want to abridge free speech, too, to make it more compatible with the 21st century. Keep the 2nd Amendment. Get rid of the NRA. Good luck with that. The National Rifle Association is not a special interest. Tens of millions of people are either members or support the NRA, and it only gets bigger and more influential when people like you want to punish law-abiding gun owners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 12:15:43 GMT -5
Ownership of firearms is not a privilege. It's a RIGHT. Joseph, as an outsider to this debate, what I kinda struggle with is why someone needs to own a gun for law-abiding purposes. Even if I had the right to buy a gun, I can't see any reason for me to do so. I feel I live in a safe place and don't feel threatened or afraid that I need to have a gun at my disposal. Please enlighten me why having this right to buy is so important to those in the US, and why would you buy (or maybe you already have) a gun. If you didn't have this right, how would that affect your life?
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 17, 2016 12:33:40 GMT -5
Even if I had the right to buy a gun, I can't see any reason for me to do so. I feel I live in a safe place and don't feel threatened or afraid that I need to have a gun at my disposal. The point of the second amendment to the United States constitution is to make sure the state (any government entity) can't disarm the population. Please enlighten me why having this right to buy is so important to those in the US, and why would you buy (or maybe you already have) a gun. If you didn't have this right, how would that affect your life? I don't own a firearm, and probably never will. I am, however, a citizen of the United States, and I cannot be one without constitutional rights, the most important of which is the right to own a firearm. That includes assault weapons, rocket launchers -- whatever. You're obviously not an American, so you would never understand. We have a different relationship to the state than you have to yours. That is never going to change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 13:07:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the info.
Btw I asked the question in good faith and even though I'm not an American, I think I can understand what it's all about. You don't have to patronise me with your superiority complex.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 17, 2016 13:38:32 GMT -5
I asked the question in good faith and even though I'm not an American, I think I can understand what it's all about. You don't have to patronise me with your superiority complex. I apologize if I sounded that way. The members of this forum, however, do like to opine about the internal politics of others' countries, and they're the ones that sound condescending, to me. I do sincerely appreciate your attempt to understand the American psyche, however, relative to firearms. Others don't even try.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 17, 2016 18:24:20 GMT -5
if some whackos with automatic weapons managed to get into Congress and open fire, THEN we might hear them singing a different tune. Something similar to that has happened in the Capitol. Politicians have been murdered, including U.S. presidents. The Second Amendment is as popular today as it was in 1789, if not more so. Still, if you wish its repeal, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll get dozens of signatures on your petition. I think the idea is to add a regulation or 2 which Congress is set to vote on Monday. Of course they had to consult with the NRA first. I'll be amazed if it goes anywhere. Too many of our politicians are bought and paid for.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 18, 2016 4:04:33 GMT -5
exactly Dex....if it were the powers that be on the end of bullet sprays every few months.....it would be a very different matter
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 18, 2016 4:13:28 GMT -5
I asked the question in good faith and even though I'm not an American, I think I can understand what it's all about. You don't have to patronise me with your superiority complex. I apologize if I sounded that way. The members of this forum, however, do like to opine about the internal politics of others' countries, and they're the ones that sound condescending, to me. I do sincerely appreciate your attempt to understand the American psyche, however, relative to firearms. Others don't even try. others do understand WHY you have guns but come to their own conclusions as to the rational of your gun culture as for having opinions on other countries by which you mean yours...get your government to stay out of the internal and external affairs of other countries....we[you people] posters only give an opinion we don't actually interfere in your affairs[of course that could change] plus its a message board.....duhhhhh
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 18, 2016 10:24:04 GMT -5
I apologize if I sounded that way. The members of this forum, however, do like to opine about the internal politics of others' countries, and they're the ones that sound condescending, to me. I do sincerely appreciate your attempt to understand the American psyche, however, relative to firearms. Others don't even try. others do understand WHY you have guns but come to their own conclusions as to the rational of your gun culture as for having opinions on other countries by which you mean yours...get your government to stay out of the internal and external affairs of other countries....we[you people] posters only give an opinion we don't actually interfere in your affairs[of course that could change] plus its a message board.....duhhhhh I suppose that this could be viewed as a matter semantics and differing use of words, however, we really don’t have a gun culture, here within the United States. That is, the interest of some in guns is little different than a person’s interest in boats, or antique cars, antique farm equipment, or any number of other interest people have. Where there is a problem here is when the exchange crosses over into Individual Rights as that term is used here in the United States. There is no debate as to a United States Citizen keeping and Bearing Arms. An individual right that from the time (1787) of the ratification of the Constitution, as with other Individual Rights the federal government cannot infringe on that right except as defined within the Constitution. Some Individual Rights of United States Citizens were considered so fundamental to the formation of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, that in 1791 a (so called) Bill of Rights was ratified specifically noting some Citizen Individual Rights and excluding the federal government from altering these rights except as noted in the Constitution. The Second Article of that Bill of Rights noted the Right (of the Citizen) to Keep and Bear Arms and excluded the federal government from infringing on that Individual Right. That is very strong language in that it didn’t simply bar the federal government from passing a law directed at the controlling of that Individual Right (as was done relative to Freedom of Speech) but rather excluded the federal government from infringing on the Citizen’s Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That includes not only not passing such a law but from doing anything thing minimizing that right. The reason for this is the concern of the Founders that government would grow and become more intrusive and that the armed Citizen was the last line of defense against such a government. Some say that such a concern was not realistic but as the years passed the government did grow and with the end of our Civil War a period of reconstruction was initiated and it was found that although they were now full Citizens, many former slaves were barred from having firearms. Not by the federal government but by State and local government. So then in 1868 the 14th Amendment was instituted which in part applied the Exclusionary first 8 Amendments to also include State governments. With this the reality of the Citizens’ Individual to Keep and Bear Firearms became absolute through our the land. Even with all of this obvious and clear history there were those within the country who were so anti-gun in the hands of the citizens that these realities were rejected it would take many more years until this was addressed and settled by the Supreme Court in two landmark cases. The first was District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 [26 June 2008]. Here it was decided that the 2nd Amendment applies to federal enclaves. The second case was McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 [28 June 2010]. Here it was decided that the Second Amendment applied to all States and local Jurisdictions due to the 14th Amendment. While this should be the finalized opinion within the United States that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Citizens’ Individual Right and is applicable in all States, federal enclaves and Territories, obviously it will not be the end because those who are anti-guns will continue to misuse this to reject the idea of the citizen being armed. The point is, in fact it is so obviously is not about a gun culture but rather about the Citizen’s Individual Rights, there should not be a question, but it continues to be challenges as if it were some pathological obsession about owning guns. In fact that continued focus on the wrong thing (the Citizen having guns) gets in the way of developing actual solutions to those who, for whatever reason, want to initiate violence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 10:32:29 GMT -5
I asked the question in good faith and even though I'm not an American, I think I can understand what it's all about. You don't have to patronise me with your superiority complex. I apologize if I sounded that way. The members of this forum, however, do like to opine about the internal politics of others' countries, and they're the ones that sound condescending, to me. I do sincerely appreciate your attempt to understand the American psyche, however, relative to firearms. Others don't even try. No problem, Joseph. We're cool.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jun 18, 2016 11:13:37 GMT -5
I suppose that this could be viewed as a matter semantics and differing use of words, however, we really don’t have a gun culture, here within the United States. That is, the interest of some in guns is little different than a person’s interest in boats, or antique cars, antique farm equipment, or any number of other interest people have. By now, we've been over this enough times that we all shoudl understand the history lesson, Men. The point is, we need to apply the sage thinking of our forefathers to todays needs. We NEED to make it more of a privilege to buy guns than a right. Too bad but people who would abuse that right live among us We NEED to give our innocent children and members of our society an American Dream that does not include unstable whack-os running around with guns they can buy and use at will. Time marches on. We can look back with longing but things have changed. Our laws and rights need to keep up with the current situation. You don't say whether you are for or against the legislation that will come up on Monday. Is it possible you are against trying to keep deadly weapons from being so easy for terrorists to get? Surely not,
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 18, 2016 14:57:22 GMT -5
I suppose that this could be viewed as a matter semantics and differing use of words, however, we really don’t have a gun culture, here within the United States. That is, the interest of some in guns is little different than a person’s interest in boats, or antique cars, antique farm equipment, or any number of other interest people have. By now, we've been over this enough times that we all shoudl understand the history lesson, Men. The point is, we need to apply the sage thinking of our forefathers to todays needs. We NEED to make it more of a privilege to buy guns than a right. Too bad but people who would abuse that right live among us We NEED to give our innocent children and members of our society an American Dream that does not include unstable whack-os running around with guns they can buy and use at will. Time marches on. We can look back with longing but things have changed. Our laws and rights need to keep up with the current situation. You don't say whether you are for or against the legislation that will come up on Monday. Is it possible you are against trying to keep deadly weapons from being so easy for terrorists to get? Surely not, Anna, your comment, “ . . . We NEED to make it more of a privilege to buy guns than a right. Too bad but people who would abuse that right live among us We NEED to give our innocent children and members of our society an American Dream that does not include unstable whack-os running around with guns they can buy and use at will. . . . “ demonstrates a wide difference in perspectives. To do as you suggest would mean that the 2nd Amendment restricting actions of the government as to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would have to be dropped. Even so, that would still leave the reality that Keeping and Bearing Arms is an Individual Right. The only legal method of making such changes is by Constitutional Amendment which would also have to weaken the 14th Amendment. This is another area that will likely never happen. Your following comment, “ . . . Time marches on. We can look back with longing but things have changed. Our laws and rights need to keep up with the current situation. . . . “ Certainly laws can be changed (as long as they remain Constitutional) when needed and they are every year. Rights, in this case Individual Rights, do not change, they are inherent in the individual and are not provided by government nor by the Constitution. The only thing that can happen in that context is that the structure of our government would have to be changed from being a Constitutional Representative Republic to a strong central government operating without recognition of Individual Rights. From past comments of yours as well as this one, it appears that you do not believe that Individual Rights are inherent in the Individual but rather come from being provided by government. There are certainly governments which have (and do) operated in such a manner and we could do so too, but I really believe that you would not care for the result. You weren’t specific Anna so I don’t know which of the 4 different proposals relative to guns your supporting or maybe all of them, I don’t know. It is highly unlikely that any of them will pass. One is sponsored by Democrat Dianne Feinstein would let the government prevent terrorist suspects from buying guns. It would be helpful to know how they become terrorist suspects, to know if they are citizens, who is making that determination. The FBI is already doing a lo9t of that but they are undermanned and the word of their investigations are not reaching local law enforcement. By increasing the number of FBI agents and getting word to local law enforcement a lot would be accomplished. To what degree they are a suspect and how that is determined is important so that the rights of innocent people are not abused. Another bill by Republican John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, would require court approval within three days for a government ban on an individual's attempt to buy a gun. The current time frame for the court approval is too slow and often goes past the length of time to approve or disapprove the attempt to buy a gun. Obviously here too there is a shortage of available courts to make such judgements. This might be addressed by increasing the number of Magisterial District Judges which can be appointed quite rapidly and have them limited to just these types of cases. A third proposal, from Democrat Murphy, would expand background check procedures to the sales of all firearms, including those online and at gun shows. This sounds reasonable but has the same challenge of shortage of people to do the work. A fourth proposal, from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, would provide for law enforcement to be notified if a person investigated for terrorism in the last five years tries to buy a gun. This would seem to be the most reasonable and the fastest one to get up and going but is dependent on the ATF and FBI having such files and be willing to make them available. All of these 4 proposals need additional work to make them viable. Just voting for anyone of them to get something enacted would likely create many problems. There are ways to address these violence issues without enacting draconian measures. However, each time there is an opportunity to do so, the issue becomes anchored to an absolute requirement for more gun laws and the entire process comes to a halt with accusations being thrown back and forth and no moving ahead.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 18, 2016 16:30:12 GMT -5
By now, we've been over this enough times that we all shoudl understand the history lesson, Men. The point is, we need to apply the sage thinking of our forefathers to todays needs. We NEED to make it more of a privilege to buy guns than a right. Too bad but people who would abuse that right live among us We NEED to give our innocent children and members of our society an American Dream that does not include unstable whack-os running around with guns they can buy and use at will. Time marches on. We can look back with longing but things have changed. Our laws and rights need to keep up with the current situation. You don't say whether you are for or against the legislation that will come up on Monday. Is it possible you are against trying to keep deadly weapons from being so easy for terrorists to get? Surely not, Anna, your comment, “ . . . We NEED to make it more of a privilege to buy guns than a right. Too bad but people who would abuse that right live among us We NEED to give our innocent children and members of our society an American Dream that does not include unstable whack-os running around with guns they can buy and use at will. . . . “ demonstrates a wide difference in perspectives. To do as you suggest would mean that the 2nd Amendment restricting actions of the government as to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would have to be dropped. Even so, that would still leave the reality that Keeping and Bearing Arms is an Individual Right. The only legal method of making such changes is by Constitutional Amendment which would also have to weaken the 14th Amendment. This is another area that will likely never happen. Your following comment, “ . . . Time marches on. We can look back with longing but things have changed. Our laws and rights need to keep up with the current situation. . . . “ Certainly laws can be changed (as long as they remain Constitutional) when needed and they are every year. Rights, in this case Individual Rights, do not change, they are inherent in the individual and are not provided by government nor by the Constitution. The only thing that can happen in that context is that the structure of our government would have to be changed from being a Constitutional Representative Republic to a strong central government operating without recognition of Individual Rights. From past comments of yours as well as this one, it appears that you do not believe that Individual Rights are inherent in the Individual but rather come from being provided by government. There are certainly governments which have (and do) operated in such a manner and we could do so too, but I really believe that you would not care for the result. You weren’t specific Anna so I don’t know which of the 4 different proposals relative to guns your supporting or maybe all of them, I don’t know. It is highly unlikely that any of them will pass. One is sponsored by Democrat Dianne Feinstein would let the government prevent terrorist suspects from buying guns. It would be helpful to know how they become terrorist suspects, to know if they are citizens, who is making that determination. The FBI is already doing a lo9t of that but they are undermanned and the word of their investigations are not reaching local law enforcement. By increasing the number of FBI agents and getting word to local law enforcement a lot would be accomplished. To what degree they are a suspect and how that is determined is important so that the rights of innocent people are not abused. Another bill by Republican John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, would require court approval within three days for a government ban on an individual's attempt to buy a gun. The current time frame for the court approval is too slow and often goes past the length of time to approve or disapprove the attempt to buy a gun. Obviously here too there is a shortage of available courts to make such judgements. This might be addressed by increasing the number of Magisterial District Judges which can be appointed quite rapidly and have them limited to just these types of cases. A third proposal, from Democrat Murphy, would expand background check procedures to the sales of all firearms, including those online and at gun shows. This sounds reasonable but has the same challenge of shortage of people to do the work. A fourth proposal, from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, would provide for law enforcement to be notified if a person investigated for terrorism in the last five years tries to buy a gun. This would seem to be the most reasonable and the fastest one to get up and going but is dependent on the ATF and FBI having such files and be willing to make them available. All of these 4 proposals need additional work to make them viable. Just voting for anyone of them to get something enacted would likely create many problems. There are ways to address these violence issues without enacting draconian measures. However, each time there is an opportunity to do so, the issue becomes anchored to an absolute requirement for more gun laws and the entire process comes to a halt with accusations being thrown back and forth and no moving ahead. Thaniks, Men an tol. This is a pretty good synopsis. I'm going to put up an article that helps make things even clearer. None of these bills are what we need but some of them might help a little ... if only by allowing our lawmakers to claim they tried. Cornyn's bill is the most useless (no surprise the NRA is giving it a nod). 3 days doesn't allow enough time and I believe that's fairly obvious to all. I like Murphy's bill best ... followed by Chuck Grassley's which is similar. Do read the following article ... reasonably nonpartisan and informative. I should add, from the heart, I agree with Annie, totally. But, we don't have the luxury of a fair and balanced (excuse the expression) situation, so it's mopre practical to go with what we have.
|
|