U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-02-2013, 11:16 PM
 
6,319 posts, read 5,693,194 times
Reputation: 11932

Advertisements

The second amendment was written in 1791.

Your founding fathers had blunderbusses in mind, not AK47s. Marauding natives not kids in schools.

Laws come and they go. It used to be illegal for a woman to drive or vote.

If the well intentioned gentlemen of the 18th century could look forward in time to a mess like Sandy Hook, do you think they would have amended the amendment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2013, 11:20 PM
 
6,319 posts, read 5,693,194 times
Reputation: 11932
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeatheist View Post
I was guaranteed an individual right by the second amendment. No other clarification was needed.
And there it is.

Your problem in a nutshell.

Individual rights are considered supreme in the US, they far outweigh the rights of the many.

Socialist countries like Australia are the other way around.

Who's doing better, socially? Who's having kids shot up in kindergartens?

There is a price to pay for this alleged "freedom" and that price is one your children and grandchildren will pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 02:30 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,324 posts, read 7,469,086 times
Reputation: 15903
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
And there it is.

Your problem in a nutshell.

Individual rights are considered supreme in the US, they far outweigh the rights of the many.

Socialist countries like Australia are the other way around.

Who's doing better, socially? Who's having kids shot up in kindergartens?

There is a price to pay for this alleged "freedom" and that price is one your children and grandchildren will pay.
And you have just informed all of us that under your definition of morality, the end justifies the means.

Tamper with property rights first; eventually, no one is safe.

Same rationale as used by Stalin, Hitler, Khomeini, and bin Laden.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 03:24 AM
 
7,269 posts, read 3,751,769 times
Reputation: 3758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Gee... I wonder why ALL of these "mass shootings" happen in "gun free zones"

...tough one!
If it wasn`t a gun where exactly did the bullets come from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 03:51 AM
 
Location: Corona
10,066 posts, read 13,966,901 times
Reputation: 8902
IMO the OP, is saying gun free zones mean free targets for whack jobs. Why do they always demand collateral damage. Just end their own pain, don't take out innocents. Just sickening really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 04:08 AM
 
7,269 posts, read 3,751,769 times
Reputation: 3758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado xxxxx View Post
IMO the OP, is saying gun free zones mean free targets for whack jobs. Why do they always demand collateral damage. Just end their own pain, don't take out innocents. Just sickening really.
Whenever someone complains about "gun free zones" you know they`re under the control of the NRA. Always looking for more ways to sell guns of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 06:05 AM
 
Location: Waiting for a streetcar
1,137 posts, read 1,176,329 times
Reputation: 1116
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeatheist View Post
I was guaranteed an individual right by the second amendment. No other clarification was needed.
Actually, the "Whataver I Think" school of Constitutional interpretation, while having a number of members, carries exactly no weight at all. You have rights as the state defines, assigns, and defends them for you. No others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 06:17 AM
 
1,474 posts, read 3,077,512 times
Reputation: 2052
1. Government war on drugs. FAIL.
2. Government war on cancer. FAIL.
3. Government war in Vietnam, Iraq, elsewhere. FAIL.
4. Government war on terrorism (a tactic btw). FAIL
5. Government war on poverty. FAIL
6. Government war on energy independence. FAIL
7. Government war on violence against women and children. FAIL

The ability of the government to confiscate, gather up over 200 million guns (likely more), in an effective way is likely to fail--as usual.

We do not need more laws, more policies, we need better people and that isn't going to happen either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 06:25 AM
 
Location: Newtown, CT
34 posts, read 51,322 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
The second amendment was written in 1791.

Your founding fathers had blunderbusses in mind, not AK47s. Marauding natives not kids in schools.

Laws come and they go. It used to be illegal for a woman to drive or vote.

If the well intentioned gentlemen of the 18th century could look forward in time to a mess like Sandy Hook, do you think they would have amended the amendment?
The second amendment was written a long time ago, but we've had hundreds of years to change it and we have collectively chosen not to do so.

The Constitution can be modified as necessary to fit our needs. When we wanted to give women the right to vote, we changed the Constitution by adding the 19th amendment. Maybe someday there will be overwhelming support and the second amendment or the first amendment will be repealed, but it hasn't happened yet. And I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, let's not forget that. You may not like what it says, but the correct approach is to modify the document, not ignore it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Waiting for a streetcar
1,137 posts, read 1,176,329 times
Reputation: 1116
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
You need to read a little more founding father.
I have read a great deal more of what the founders wrote than just the stupid no-context-at-all soundbites collected at untold numbers of whacko websites. Then there is all that odd history and custom of the time to take into account. Let me know when you get caught up on that. By then of course, you will understand that writers of the period used the phrase "to bear arms" almost exclusively within a military context. When they wanted to refer to personal habits, they used the phrase "to carry weapons". Interesting, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
There is lots more though unfortunately most of the gunnie quotes are phony.
Their whole thesis is phony. As currently constructed, they are a collection of crackpots and liars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
But whatever...we in are wisdom have decided that an armed citizenry is in our best interest. I presume their are good rationales for this though I admit they may be difficult to find with specificity.
An armed citizenry is in our best interests? Who decided that, when, and on what basis? As a result of the needs and peculiar politics of the time, an otherwise all but inscrutable amendment made it into the Bill of Rights. It is outmoded in terms of its original purposes and rationale, but as the result of it, you can today keep a weapon for self-defense in your own home, and plausibly for some other traditionally lawful purposes. I know some are drawn to the bright, shiny objects of spurs and horsies and guns and saloons but Gary Cooper was not one of the founding fathers and never served a term on the Supreme Court..

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
So given that we are going there we might as well do it right. And, in my mind, that strongly supports a relatively well armed citizenry with few limits on the rights to carry.
That's an interesting opinion, and you're welcome to it. There is nothing however to commend it to others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
a poorly armed citizenry simple makes the arms available to the bad side while not spreading it widely to the good.
That's kind of simplistic, Marshall Dillion. It isn't the farmers versus the ranchers here, nor the gunslingers versus the peace-loving townspeople. Putting guns into the hands of everybody outside their own homes accomplishes nothing but the creation of more Trayvon Martins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Florida pretty conclusively demonstrated there are no bad effects from wide spread citizen carry.
Not at all conclusively. You've been bamboozled if you actually believed that when you wrote it. Which I'll admit is unlikely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
There are over 10,000 victims of firearms. That is the price for the capability. Suicides and accidents to but not really restricted to hand guns.
There are more than 30,000 gunshot deaths every year and hundreds of thousands of gunshot injuries. Because of the internal damage done by tumbling, shattering and ricocheting bullets, treating gunshot wounds is an extremely painstaking and therefore expensive proposition. Simply reducing the number of gunshot wounds in this country would be a far better way to reduce overall health care costs than tort reform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
So we have made our choice and need to proceed. Why not do it right?
I'm sure everyone would favor "doing things right", but you haven't been right about anything to this point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:35 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top