RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 3:06:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

And reaching 40 years back to high school government class, I think it can also go the other way with ratification by 2/3 of the states sending something to congress which then would have to pass it. I'd have to look that up though.


Would you mind?

That's really really interesting, and I'd no idea.

In some respects the inertia that the need for state ratification is a good thing, but in others it's potentially bad.

If a majority of people living in, say, California voted in a referendum to restrict gun ownership they could be prevented by the USSC, is that right?

So, while inertia means that there can't be a "knee jerk" change to your fundamental rights, even a considered desire to change those rights would be constrained...




Absolutely correct and intentionally put together that way by the founders. In fact, until recently our Supreme Court had never issued any judgement on our second amendment except maybe once in 250 years. So many state and local governments did just what you say and enacted stifling gun control laws. (As an aside...all of those place now have very high gun violence and I assert its because only the outlaws have guns) recently our Supreme Court finally issued two edicts that pretty much swept all those local laws away across the nation.




BitaTruble -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 3:14:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

And reaching 40 years back to high school government class, I think it can also go the other way with ratification by 2/3 of the states sending something to congress which then would have to pass it. I'd have to look that up though.


Would you mind?

That's really really interesting, and I'd no idea.

In some respects the inertia that the need for state ratification is a good thing, but in others it's potentially bad.

If a majority of people living in, say, California voted in a referendum to restrict gun ownership they could be prevented by the USSC, is that right?

So, while inertia means that there can't be a "knee jerk" change to your fundamental rights, even a considered desire to change those rights would be constrained...



It's 3/4, not 2/3 of the States and yes, that would absolutely be challenged all the way to the SCOTUS level. It's the law of the land.. it trumps and it's not meant to be easy to change but when something is overwhelming it certainly can be changed which is why wine now runs free (in a figurative way).




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 3:16:25 PM)

A US constitutional amendment may be made by congress making a 2/3 vote in both houses and then sending it to the states or the states calling for a constitutional congress. So, it can go either way. It's been tried once in my lifetime.

None of the current 27 changes to the constitution have be first proposed by the states calling for a constitutional congress. For it to pass 3/4 (eulero was correct and I was wrong) of all the states and 2/3 of congress must agree.




BitaTruble -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 3:20:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

A US constitutional amendment may be made by congress making a 2/3 vote in both houses and then sending it to the states or the states calling for a constitutional congress. So, it can go either way. It's been tried once in my lifetime.

None of the current 27 changes to the constitution have be first proposed by the states calling for a constitutional congress. For it to pass 2/3 of all the states and 2/3 of congress must agree.

2/3 of Congress, 3/4 of the States.

edited: meh.. we were typing at the same time but at least the info is now correct




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 3:21:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

A US constitutional amendment may be made by congress making a 2/3 vote in both houses and then sending it to the states or the states calling for a constitutional congress. So, it can go either way. It's been tried once in my lifetime.

None of the current 27 changes to the constitution have be first proposed by the states calling for a constitutional congress. For it to pass 2/3 of all the states and 2/3 of congress must agree.

2/3 of Congress, 3/4 of the States.


You are correct. I edited that and assigned myself blame. I also credited Eulero, our Italian, for knowing better than I.




thompsonx -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 3:46:11 PM)

For a pinko commie European that's pretty darn close and way above any knowledge i have of how your country runs. Kudos.

So from a base of no knowledge of how another country runs you constantly find fault with socialist governments and socialist entities.
The phrase that describes that is "talking out of ones ass"




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 3:50:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Sorry peon. Here's the statement on the bottom of this statement. Since I don't live in Britain I believed it.



Can I assure you, that we've had many democratic elections since the 20's, and that the voting public have had ample opportunity to call for changes to the law?

But Peon, and indirectly you, make a really important point - In the absence of a proper constitution, the government could change the law with a simple majority.

But, could Congress not repeal the 2nd Amendment with the right majority?




2/3 of both houses + 3/4 of the state legislatures.
And there would be lots of debates.
Any 13 states could stop it. 




butternutsquash -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 5:07:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

(As an aside...all of those place now have very high gun violence and I assert its because only the outlaws have guns)

A claim that plenty of others have probably already proved to you is bogus, yet you keep repeating it. If that's how you're going to be, I'm going to vote to take away your guns just because I think you're an asshole. Grow enough balls to shoot straight with people instead of just repeating the same tired, discredited garbage. There is real quantitative science out there that suggests that gun laws actually do tend to have the intended effect. This has probably been pointed out to you repeatedly, and I think the reason you're ignoring it is that you're an immoral piece of shit.

There is an opportunity cost, though. I am convinced that socioeconomic factors have a lot more to do with violent crime, including gun violence, than the prevalence of gun ownership. I have been sifting through a lot of information on this subject. Although I can find some evidence on behalf of gun control, the same money that is spent on gun control could have been spent on initiatives to improve socioeconomic conditions in risk areas, such as by improved education. Improving the dissemination of information on how to prevent gun violence would probably also help. Arm the people with knowledge.

I really have trouble seeing guns as the source of any problem. I grew up around guns. I have hunted with them. I have shot snakes with them. People I know have shot coyotes with them. To me, they are just useful tools, and I'm accustomed to taking a very relaxed view toward them. Yeah, they can be dangerous, but so can a motor vehicle. "Don't aim a gun at your friend, even if you're sure it's not loaded," is right up there with "always come to a full stop at a stop sign, even if you're sure nobody is coming." I also can't imagine the idea of shooting at a human being.

On the other hand, when people talk about their "2nd Amendment rights," I have to laugh. We don't even get to exercise our "1st Amendment rights" unless we are within the bounds of "protected speech." If we took the 2nd Amendment as literally as some people are trying to insist, we'd be legalizing the private ownership of Scud missiles. I'm convinced that people who rely on this kind of argument are like rules lawyers at a D&D game: they're obnoxious assholes who lend nothing of value to the discussion.

Maybe the change in people's attitudes on guns is reflective of demographic changes. In the area that I grew up in, I learned how to shoot by taking shots at a dirt mound--as well as soda cans and other targets set out in front of it--behind my house, and I was up to my eyeballs in cottonmouths. Deer were a noxious, disease-bearing, corn-murdering pest, and you could no more feel sympathy for the damn things than you could a New York City sewer rat. Besides, they taste good.

With the rural population declining, though, people growing up today don't have those kinds of issues in their existence, and they really can't conceive of a gun being used for any other purpose than shooting a person in cold blood. They are skeptical of the tool's usefulness for "self-defense," and quite frankly, so am I. As our society changes, our outlook on these kinds of things will inevitably change with it.

I realize that my views are not especially compatible with the polemic of this discussion, and I realize that I'm not being clear on whether I'm "pro-gun" or "anti-gun." The truth is that I don't have strong emotions about any aspect of this discussion except for the lies and bullshit that I see flying around constantly. I think that even the gun control we have now is kind of stupid, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I've got better things to worry about than some dumb gun laws.

I also object to the idea that I need guns to keep me "free." No, I need an education to keep me free. If you don't have an educated perspective on what you hear in the media, then you are being controlled. Your will means nothing. You are open to being manipulated by paid-for pundits. You are their tool. You are their puppet. If you don't make a serious effort to enlighten yourself, then your "freedom" will quickly vanish, and the guns won't help you.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 6:14:25 PM)

Actually no, we've discussed peered reviewed studies that mostly show more guns reduce crime.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 6:35:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually no, we've discussed peered reviewed studies that mostly show more guns reduce crime.


18 0 9
If you follow sports standings.
That is pretty clear cut.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 6:38:27 PM)

Actually butternut, I'll leave it to Bama or crazyML to educate you on the studies available regarding guns. I'm not impressed with much you say. What in the hell do you shoot rattle snakes for? If you live in the country they eat mice and keep them out of the house. When I find them in my yard I pick them up and take them to the bushes.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 6:42:10 PM)

Fuck, I'm sorry, I can't get over that. I've walked around hundreds of rattle snakes. They never bother me. Why shoot one. Now keep in mind at this time I have elk, antelope, deer and duck in my freezer. So I shoot things pretty regularly. In fact I'm out of pig and planning more of that now. Do you eat the rattle snakes you shoot?




butternutsquash -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 6:50:18 PM)

Cite me a doi, you useless fuck-brain, and not some fucking doctored-up statistics. I get tired of you punks. You have no fucking integrity. You don't have a fucking conscience.

The damn things won't even protect your silly ass: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

But you're not going to believe anything that doesn't fit your political view: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

Hey, everybody, Hunter here thinks that he's substantiated his views, and he wants to prove it to us by citing some material from an NRA-linked website or something cited by a rightwing blogger. Everyone come laugh at this fuckhead.

The more I see these useless wastes of human life, the more I want to knock them down. GROW SOME INTEGRITY, YOU USELESS FUCK.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 6:53:43 PM)

Oh wow, you're impressively tough.




butternutsquash -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 6:53:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Fuck, I'm sorry, I can't get over that. I've walked around hundreds of rattle snakes. They never bother me. Why shoot one.


I picked them up and played with them because I was a twelve year old idiot. Harmless timber rattlers don't have a lethal bite, so it wasn't a big deal. A water moccasin bite isn't necessarily a death sentence, either, but I'm still going to shoot the motherfuckers on site because they're aggressive and obnoxious.




butternutsquash -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 6:55:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Oh wow, you're impressively tough.

I'm enjoying the fact that I can say exactly what I think in one of these situations. MY FUCKING GOD, IT'S FUN!




Lucylastic -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 7:04:08 PM)

THankyou butternutsquash for the best reasoned pro gun user response Ive seen on this thread (as opposed to me a furrigner who obviously a rabid anti gun nut who has actually evolved beyond "get rid of all guns attitude")
Can we keep you?




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 7:06:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

Cite me a doi, you useless fuck-brain, and not some fucking doctored-up statistics. I get tired of you punks. You have no fucking integrity. You don't have a fucking conscience.

The damn things won't even protect your silly ass: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

But you're not going to believe anything that doesn't fit your political view: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

Hey, everybody, Hunter here thinks that he's substantiated his views, and he wants to prove it to us by citing some material from an NRA-linked website or something cited by a rightwing blogger. Everyone come laugh at this fuckhead.

The more I see these useless wastes of human life, the more I want to knock them down. GROW SOME INTEGRITY, YOU USELESS FUCK.


That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.
In fact an overwhelming number of them, many done by people who started out to show how dangerous guns were, show that ccw laws result in a drop in crime, relative to the national drop in crime.




BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 7:09:43 PM)

FR
We've been going so well. no need to get into a pissing contest.




butternutsquash -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/6/2013 7:17:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.


Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect.

However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect.

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222

This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives.

But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney.




Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625