• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More thoughts, more prayers and more dead, it will never end!

The constitution describes how it can be amended. Have at it.



independentusa said:
All we need is an amendment allowing the government to put restrictions on gun ownership. I am not talking about all guns, but military style weapons might help. How could a person kill what, nine or ten and wound 16 more in a minute without such a weapon as happened in Dayton. But I am a realist and know that it will never happen. Instead as I have said, more thoughts, prayers and dead. How many people need to die before people like you, who seem more worried about guns than people, see what is right before eyes and join with us that something actually needs to be done.
Click to expand...
 
Rich2018 said:
Yeah you're right, the USA can't do anything.

Just let the shootings continue.
Click to expand...

Seems every other advanced Western nation can manage to get along with stringent firearm controls, but the most advanced and powerful, America, appears to suffer from erectile dysfunction when it comes to the crunch.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Well regulated refers to being trained and supplied - does the government do either for "the people"? The 2A does not grant a government power of any kind - in fact, it restricts its power to disarm the people (regardless of their militia duty status).
Click to expand...

The argument you are having is moot. The present SCOTUS has said it is an individual right to bear arms and that is now the law of the land. You can argue all you want about whether the court got it right, but until another SCOTUS rules different or we pass an amendment the right remains.
 
TobyOne said:
The constitution describes how it can be amended. Have at it.
Click to expand...

You did read the part where I said I was a realist and did not expect an amendment to the 2nd? You can read?
 
independentusa said:
All we need is an amendment allowing the government to put restrictions on gun ownership. I am not talking about all guns, but military style weapons might help. How could a person kill what, nine or ten and wound 16 more in a minute without such a weapon as happened in Dayton. But I am a realist and know that it will never happen. Instead as I have said, more thoughts, prayers and dead. How many people need to die before people like you, who seem more worried about guns than people, see what is right before eyes and join with us that something actually needs to be done.
Click to expand...

I could shoot just as many using a lever action rifle.if you stopped all sales if all semiauto rifles it would not change a thing, been there done that, and there are millions more already owned which makes any ban a joke. How about we figure out Why people are doing this, guns were everywhere and easy to buy when I was young and people did not do this,bso what has changed??? Clue: we are using it to have this conversation ...
 
I tend to skip over your posts because your formatting sucks and you're a little looney.

The point still holds. If you don't like the constitution you can try to change it. If not, I would stfu and stop whining about it.



independentusa said:
You did read the part where I said I was a realist and did not expect an amendment to the 2nd? You can read?
Click to expand...
 
independentusa said:
All we need is an amendment allowing the government to put restrictions on gun ownership. I am not talking about all guns, but military style weapons might help. How could a person kill what, nine or ten and wound 16 more in a minute without such a weapon as happened in Dayton. But I am a realist and know that it will never happen. Instead as I have said, more thoughts, prayers and dead. How many people need to die before people like you, who seem more worried about guns than people, see what is right before eyes and join with us that something actually needs to be done.
Click to expand...

The guy at VA Tech killed 32 with two handguns. The gun is merely the tool. It is the thoughts, the lack of conscience, the lack of morals, the cynicism, the lack of self worth, the feelings of isolation, the exposure to harmful influences (internet, TV, movies, etc) and the need for instant gratification, which often leads to these things. THAT is what needs to be fixed.

Any person intent on these types of crimes will accomplish them. We've always had lots and lots of guns and, in the past, much more lax laws, but these kinds of shootings were extremely rare. When you have fractured families, isolation and people being brought up with no moral foundation, whether from the family or the church, you get these types of crimes. Guns haven't changed. Society has.
 
independentusa said:
The argument you are having is moot. The present SCOTUS has said it is an individual right to bear arms and that is now the law of the land. You can argue all you want about whether the court got it right, but until another SCOTUS rules different or we pass an amendment the right remains.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is my point - how, exactly, is it moot?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
It should be very difficult to get a gun. We should acknowledge that we have a problem where nuts buy guns and go around murdering people. I think we can do a good job screening for weirdo loners trying to buy guns. You should be required to visit a psychiatrist to get a gun. You should be required to visit one every 5 years if you own a gun.

Most of these people have extremely dysfunctional lives.
Click to expand...

They are dysfunctional. We need to figure out why we have so many dysfunctional people. It should also require some vetting to buy a firearm. I don't oppose that. We also seem to miss red flags so many times. The Parkland shooting comes to mind. Heck, the Las Vegas shooter had like 6-7 suitcases delivered to his room and nobody was the least bit curious.
 
veritas1 said:
The guy at VA Tech killed 32 with two handguns. The gun is merely the tool. It is the thoughts, the lack of conscience, the lack of morals, the cynicism, the lack of self worth, the feelings of isolation, the exposure to harmful influences (internet, TV, movies, etc) and the need for instant gratification, which often leads to these things. THAT is what needs to be fixed.

Any person intent on these types of crimes will accomplish them. We've always had lots and lots of guns and, in the past, much more lax laws, but these kinds of shootings were extremely rare. When you have fractured families, isolation and people being brought up with no moral foundation, whether from the family or the church, you get these types of crimes. Guns haven't changed. Society has.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you ever see a drive-by mass-knifing? Of course society has changed; but it seems only America is unwilling to adapt, unlike every other advanced Western nation whose stringent firearm regulations have resulted in a dramatic decrease in shootings. That is an indisputable fact, so what makes America uniquely impotent to address this?
 
snakestretcher said:
Yeah, you ever see a drive-by mass-knifing? Of course society has changed; but it seems only America is unwilling to adapt, unlike every other advanced Western nation whose stringent firearm regulations have resulted in a dramatic decrease in shootings. That is an indisputable fact, so what makes America uniquely impotent to address this?
Click to expand...

By "adapt" I suspect you mean disarming the law abiding. That is simply not going to happen here. People are not going to surrender their right to self defense. Banning any type of weapons is also fairly useless as we have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation already. People intent on crime, whether it be mass shootings or simply theft, are going to accomplish those acts most times. In most all cases, law enforcement arrives for clean up and investigation. They don't prevent much of anything. As such, people will not give up the instruments necessary to protect themselves and their families.

There was a case here in Florida recently where 4 armed men invaded a home. The homeowner was armed and killed two of the invaders while the other two were arrested. Without the means to defend his home, that guy and his family might well be dead.
 
snakestretcher said:
And why not? 2A is already an amendment so the Constitution is not written in stone and can be amended.
Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn't. . . . . The 2nd Amendment only prohibits Lawmakers from infringing on that right.

Even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed entirely, Americans still have a natural right to defend ourselves. . . .A natural right cannot be taken away or revoked.
 
I’ll say this, if people thought it was truly important, it wouldn’t matter a jot how many guns were in circulation or how long it took, something would be done.

It’s all to easy to say the US is a special case, and what worked elsewhere won’t work here... or hide behind the 2A saying my rights as an individual are more important that the 20 lives lost in El Paso, or the 9 in Ohio, or the hundreds affected having been injured, lost loved ones or even bore witness to these events....
 
bluesmoke said:
Make Federal law:
Universal background check for gun and ammo purchase
National gun registry
Lengthy gun safety and training classes that must be completed before gun purchase with license issuance
Ballistics record of test-fired round
3-day waiting period
No sales to violent criminals, stalkers, abusers
Cross check annually criminal and gun ownership records
Fingerprinting owners
Limit magazine capacity
Workplace/school weapons ban
Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership
Expand mental health treatment under ACA
Redouble law enforcement review of social media and online sites

Most important are public attitude. Whatever legislation can be shown effective is more to do with public attitude of "I've had enough and I'm not going to take it anymore" than it is the passage and enforcement of the law itself. After all, it's public attitude that gets, or does not get, legislation passed and enforcement kept up.
Click to expand...

Democrats have already tried most of those infringements you suggested, only to have them tossed by the Supreme Court. Do you have any suggestions that do not involve violating the Supreme Law of the Land?
 
independentusa said:
I am not talking about all guns, but military style weapons might help.
Click to expand...

How would that help? What does the "style" of the weapon have to do with anything?

How could a person kill what, nine or ten and wound 16 more in a minute without such a weapon as happened in Dayton.
Click to expand...

Ask Anders Breivik or Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. They each killed more than 70 people without such a weapon.
 
bluesmoke said:
Make Federal law:
Universal background check for gun and ammo purchase
National gun registry
Lengthy gun safety and training classes that must be completed before gun purchase with license issuance
Ballistics record of test-fired round
3-day waiting period
No sales to violent criminals, stalkers, abusers
Cross check annually criminal and gun ownership records
Fingerprinting owners
Limit magazine capacity
Workplace/school weapons ban
Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership
Expand mental health treatment under ACA
Redouble law enforcement review of social media and online sites

Most important are public attitude. Whatever legislation can be shown effective is more to do with public attitude of "I've had enough and I'm not going to take it anymore" than it is the passage and enforcement of the law itself. After all, it's public attitude that gets, or does not get, legislation passed and enforcement kept up.
Click to expand...

You could do all that, and it won't save nearly as many lives as merely restoring the 55mph national speed limit, or making drunk driving a felony.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Why does the 2a even mention militias if they are not contingent on the people keeping and bearing arms?
Click to expand...

Because of its history. The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federalists would ban privately owned firearms, preventing States from forming their militias. Or that the Federalists might use a partial ban to create a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Therefore, the Anti-Federalists wanted to prohibit Congress from infringing on the ancient individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is why the Second Amendment exists, and why the prefatory clause "The well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." exists.
 
Glitch said:
Because of its history. The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federalists would ban privately owned firearms, preventing States from forming their militias. Or that the Federalists might use a partial ban to create a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Therefore, the Anti-Federalists wanted to prohibit Congress from infringing on the ancient individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is why the Second Amendment exists, and why the prefatory clause "The well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." exists.
Click to expand...

So the part that follows is dependent on the prefatory clause. The modern militia is the National Guard, so the need for personal arms is obsolete.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
They were talking about muskets. Everyone can have a musket.

Let's say you disagree and this includes all future weapons.

Ok, so why can't I own grenades, a flamethrower, a bazooka or tank? Can I buy c4?

It seems clear that it's not practical to allow all future weapons.
Click to expand...

Is the First Amendment limited to only manually printed books and newspapers? Does not the First Amendment apply to broadcast and cable TV, the Internet, and any other form of communication, past, present, or future? Then why should the Second Amendment be any different?

You can buy and own grenades, machine guns, flamethrowers, bazookas, and tanks. I know private citizens that own all of those, plus field artillery and fully functional fighter jets. Any bearable weapon, and a few that are not bearable, are legally available to private citizens in the US.
 
Crosscheck said:
When the mass shootings start occurring at locations like Mar-a-Lago rather than Wal Marts.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I think guns should be allowed in all government buildings in Washington D.C.

I mean , why aren't they? Is it because politicians know something about guns that they don't want the general public to know? hmm...
 
vanceen said:
I agree that the Second Amendment contains some odd and vague wording.

However its last phrase is crystal clear and unequivocal. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't see any possibility for significant reduction of gun crime, including mass shootings, apart from a general confiscation (buyback) of firearms like Australia and some other countries have implemented. That would absolutely require a repeal of the Second Amendment. There is no realistic possibility of that, and a mandatory confiscation is very likely to lead to at least a certain amount of resistance and bloodshed.

I'm in favor of some additional "sensible" restrictions like universal checks, waiting periods, etc. But I don't for a moment believe that any of that is going to stop many suicides (the clear majority of gun deaths), criminal gang warfare, homicides, accidents, or mass shootings (which represent a tiny, tiny fraction of gun deaths). There's too many guns out there and some people will always find a way to get them.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, there is always a reaction from people suggesting that background checks and the like would reduce or eliminate them. That is fantasy. There are sensible reasons for some more restrictions, but they have little or nothing to do with stopping mass shooters. The self-congratulation I see displayed as part of the knee-jerk reaction to these horrific incidents is off-putting to say the least.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Once you understand the history of the Second Amendment and its purpose, there is nothing "odd" or "vague" about its wording. It is particular clear and concise in its operating clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." With regard to gun crime, it is reduced by not restricting law-abiding gun owners. Gun owners stop more than two million crimes in the US every day.

There is no "sensible" way to infringe on an individual right. Do you require a background check and waiting period before you post something online? Then why should the Second Amendment have those infringements placed upon it when the First Amendment doesn't?

No right is absolute. Or as they say, "your rights end at my nose." Which is why we have Tort laws, to prevent libel and slander. It is also why those who misuse their right to keep and bear arms have that individual right suppressed for the rest of their lives. However, until someone does violate the rights of others they will continue to have the individual right to keep and bear arms. You don't get to infringe on the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens just because one or two idiots chose to violate the rights of others. That would be like restricting freedom of the press because one journalist is sued for libel. That would be completely moronic.
 
Glitch said:
Democrats have already tried most of those infringements you suggested, only to have them tossed by the Supreme Court. Do you have any suggestions that do not involve violating the Supreme Law of the Land?
Click to expand...



Which one has the SC tossed? Cite the case.
 
bluesmoke said:
Which one has the SC tossed? Cite the case.
Click to expand...

United States v. Lopez. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) tossed your "Workplace/school weapons ban." The Federal District Court found New York's restrictions on magazine capacity to be in violation of the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) tossed your idea of an "Assault weapons ban of civilian ownership." Not only does a national gun registry, or maintaining any gun ownership records, or fingerprints, infringe on the Second Amendment, it also violates the Fourth Amendment and the The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.

Are there any other violations of individual rights you would like to try? Such a stereotypically leftist fascist post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom