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.
In time, absolutely yes. They amended it to outlaw slavery and to pass women's sufferage. Won't know how long until we try. Eventually people's minds change over time. It may take years but it does happen. How long did it take for all the European colonies to gain independence? How long did it take to change apartheid in South Africa and segregation and the draft in the US?
Well thankfully, I think you are wrong. American people value the constitution.
In time, absolutely yes. They amended it to outlaw slavery and to pass women's sufferage. Won't know how long until we try. Eventually people's minds change over time. It may take years but it does happen. How long did it take for all the European colonies to gain independence? How long did it take to change apartheid in South Africa and segregation and the draft in the US?
Note that in the examples you site, it's always a case of granting MORE rights which is very much different to overturn an amendment which will result in the relinquishing of a right.
Note that in the examples you site, it's always a case of granting MORE rights which is very much different to overturn an amendment which will result in the relinquishing of a right.
Except slave owners got less rights. Men got less rights with women's sufferage, as it changed the culture. People exterminated by the Nazis and Stalin and Pol Pot got less rights. When the income tax was initiated, people got less rights. When drugs were outlawed and when alcohol was outlawed, people got less rights. Innocent people that get incarcerated get less rights. Appeal courts have ruled that innocence or guilt is irrelevant and will only hear cases where there was reversible errors in procedure committed during the trial. People whose land is polluted with methane or toxic water get less rights. All of these situations where people got less rights was legal at the time. The law is very flexible and justice is blind.
Except slave owners got less rights. Men got less rights with women's sufferage, as it changed the culture. People exterminated by the Nazis and Stalin and Pol Pot got less rights. When the income tax was initiated, people got less rights. When drugs were outlawed and when alcohol was outlawed, people got less rights. Innocent people that get incarcerated get less rights. Appeal courts have ruled that innocence or guilt is irrelevant and will only hear cases where there was reversible errors in procedure committed during the trial. People whose land is polluted with methane or toxic water get less rights. All of these situations where people got less rights was legal at the time. The law is very flexible and justice is blind.
Let's be intellectually honest here, many of the cases you mention (e.g. effect of suffrage on men's rights) are side effects, the 19th did not restrict mens rights either explicitly or implicitly, it may have diluted their power, but that is a far far different concept of losing rights under the constitution. It's very important to understand the difference between a "right" vs being advantaged or disadvantaged, they are two very different concepts. Plus things like drugs have no constitutional right (e.g. you are not granted a constitutional right to take whatever drugs you want and there was no amendment that revoked that). Even the 18th isn't a good example as it didn't restrict a constitutional right, and it was enough of a disaster that many would gladly use it as an example of why any attempt to restrict/rescind the 2nd is doomed for failure.
Dorothea Dix would be thrilled with your forward-thinking on this subject, man.
I'm not saying we should not incarcerate the criminally insane in facilities designed to treat them and keep them away from the rest of the public, but not everyone who is depressed needs to be locked up. They need proper medical treatment.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Those are just typical Left wing talking points, repeated ad nauseam. Have you ever been a member or even read any of their publications? Honest question. As far as insuring that manufacturers can still peddle their wares. Their wares are perfectly legal products and they have the right to advertise just as any other manufacturer does. It should come as no surprise that they advertise in publications that reach an audience that typically buy their products. I don't think you'd see them advertise in Better Homes and Gardens or Good Housekeeping.
As far as the lobby goes the NRA is not doing anything different than what any other lobby is doing. If they weren't they wouldn't have any members. Same for Planned Parenthood, Mom's Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety. They all have the right to lobby on behalf of their members under the 1st Amendment. If you can silence one then you can silence them all.
As far as keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people that's up to the proper authorities to do their jobs. The laws are already in place. Allowing them to freely roam the streets after they've been adjudicated a danger to themselves and others certainly is not working.
I don't know, maybe we ought to figure out a way to turn criminals into kind loving people? Good luck with that.
Yes. I have been. Yes. I have read. I'm not a Democrat or even a "liberal, left winger" whatever that is.
I'm an independent. And, I used to carry concealed. And... I have owned guns... I refuse to state publicly whether I currently own/possess any because I think it's rather foolish to go on about such things publicly either way.
But, I am an excellent marksperson and I am not anti-gun.
The NRA of today is not the NRA of even the 1970s, though.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I don’t get this argument. My FB friends said anyone who supports the NRA should unfriend her. I’m not a gun person but I don’t think that is the root cause. (And a lot of the anti gun rhetoric coming from the left is about control not always about gun violence). I feel a lot of it is about the degradation of society. Parenting, social media. In the 80’s and 90’s and before we didn’t have these issues and their were guns. Yes Columbine happened in 1999 but that wasn’t the norm like it seems to be now. If someone wants to cause terror they will find a way.
No, it's not guns. We have always had plenty of guns around. It's about mental illness. It's about parents not addressing their kid's mental well being. And, it's about the few that do try and address their kid's mental illness not getting the support and help they need.
It is easy to ignore oddballs and pontificate about "gun violence."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
There needs to be stricter access to kids getting guns. If you gun rights people want to cry that that is infringing on your rights, I don't give an ish.
The truth is that most kids who want to do the most amount of damage and get a high body count use guns. There is no denying that. ....And to me, gun control includes following all the laws already on the books. When Sol Pais flew from her home state of Florida too Colorado, she was not supposed to be able to buy a gun in Colorado, but was able to indeed. There needs to be consequences for the gun shop and the person who sold her the gun.
I totally agree. I x'd some of the post out in order to respond to its substance. The enforcement of existing laws would create political difficulties, so it is easier for politicians to make statements by proposing more laws that will go unenforced or only be obeyed by the law-abiding than to target lax gun-store owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
But there are more factors than just access to guns when it comes to school shootings. Most, maybe all, have given signs to what they were going to do. They have had encounters with cops, school officials or whatnot. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Department thought Eric Harris was enough of a danger than one deputy wrote out a warrant to search his parents home in Columbine, a search that would have turned up journals outlining his thoughts as well as bomb making material. His web site at the time threatened people by name!
The guy at Parkland had several encounters with cops and nothing major happened. I understsnd that some folks are going to slip between the cracks. But it seems like every mass shooter in America has slipped through some crack somewhere.
There is one difference which I don't think is major; one involved guns, the other did not. I think Austin, basically, is the Florida massacre without guns. The Austin killer dictated a 25 minute rant into his phone before he died. While Nikolas Cruz did not put together anything so comprehensive, talks with his relatives and colleagues gave hints that the same factors were at work.
Moral of the story; this was not the fault of guns, this was the result of poor mental health and people ignoring the signs. We need to focus on mental health and warning signals, not guns. Guns are easy to rail against. Mental illness, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Ignoring "oddballs" and "loners" aggravates the situation. I came to be conscious of this issue with McGovern's cashiering of Eagleton as a candidate in the 1972 campaign. This sorry episode is part of what started my path away from believing that liberals are necessarily good people. I had thought they really believed in love, help and compassion before that....In recent years there have been other mass shootings. Parkland, Jared Lochner, James Holmes, Elliot Rodger (Santa Barbara) and Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) come to mind. All of these people were obviously troubled. All of these people, except maybe Adam Lanza, were in regular contact with other students, teachers and administrators at their respective schools. Dylan Roof was in regular contact with friends, roommates and his parents. The societal problem is that it is easier to ignore people who are not sociable and not pleasant to be with than to engage them.
It bears repetition: "The societal problem is that it is easier to ignore people who are not sociable and not pleasant to be with than to engage them."
I don’t get this argument. My FB friends said anyone who supports the NRA should unfriend her. I’m not a gun person but I don’t think that is the root cause. (And a lot of the anti gun rhetoric coming from the left is about control not always about gun violence). I feel a lot of it is about the degradation of society. Parenting, social media. In the 80’s and 90’s and before we didn’t have these issues and their were guns. Yes Columbine happened in 1999 but that wasn’t the norm like it seems to be now. If someone wants to cause terror they will find a way.
It's that the mentally-impaired get hold of weapons and think that using is a solution. It's not the guns themselves and only some should be able to have access to, but that others having too easy an access to has become too big of a problem.
The usage of should not be taken lightly or encouraged. It appears that the onset of and attitude about playing Video Games in which shooting and violence is common has contributed to this mess, in addition to sociological influences. A lot needs to change.
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.
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.
Just Try Getting Mentally Ill People Into Gov't Paid Mental Health Programs
