RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it.

RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (Full Version)

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

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:52:56 PM)
I already addressed that ...but your hide function needs more work....lol and nobody tried to paint you into anything ,my objection to your post and definition still stands .My inclusion of the word male was unfortunate but has little to do with the objection . It wasn't the "male" part that I objected to,it was" the everyone between the age of...." I don't propose to make the situation worse by adding more guns to the mix.

Kirata -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 8:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I already addressed that ...but your hide function needs more work....lol That would depend on whether or not he has smileforme50 on hide. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 DaddySatyr's "definition" doesn't say anything about "male". It says "Anyone"....which would be all genders. K.

Kirata -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 8:14:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, droll or not, it would clarify a frequent point of contention. Except that it has never been a legitimate point of contention. K.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 8:19:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I already addressed that ...but your hide function needs more work....lol That would depend on whether or not he has smileforme50 on hide. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 DaddySatyr's "definition" doesn't say anything about "male". It says "Anyone"....which would be all genders. K. Both are. My assumption of the straw man fallacy was based upon: quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee (Post # 18) quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u So basically every male of legal age ? That should work fine. You have people ducking jury duty, do you really think people are going to show up for militia muster? That is all. Michael

Musicmystery -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 8:21:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, droll or not, it would clarify a frequent point of contention. Except that it has never been a legitimate point of contention. K. Now there's a convenient bit of pseudo-reasoning even Rush could be proud of. Everyone who disagrees does so illegitimately. So simple. A priori rectus

DemonicGynoid -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 8:23:02 PM)
Im for the 2nd ammendment because of one simple thing: how will i be able to defend myself? I am weak, a gun may be the only way to protect myself from someone who wishes to do me harm. Why should I have to just wait to be saved?

smileforme50 -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 8:39:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I already addressed that ...but your hide function needs more work....lol That would depend on whether or not he has smileforme50 on hide. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 DaddySatyr's "definition" doesn't say anything about "male". It says "Anyone"....which would be all genders. K. That would be understandable.....I am one of the bitchier people here [sm=angry.gif]

Kirata -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 8:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, droll or not, it would clarify a frequent point of contention. Except that it has never been a legitimate point of contention. Now there's a convenient bit of pseudo-reasoning even Rush could be proud of. Everyone who disagrees does so illegitimately. So simple. A priori rectus The meaning of the Second Amendment has always been clear to everyone not arguing from ignorance or bias. The historical use of prefatory phrases, the meaning of the word "militia" as used therein, contemporaneous state constitutions, numerous commentaries, and subsequent case law all establish that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms includes self-defense. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 1:37:16 AM)
"The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Perhaps this is a naive question but does any one know what proportion of current legal gun owners are members of a "well regulated militia"?

tweakabelle -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 2:59:13 AM)
I happened across this analysis, by the Washington Post, of firearms used in killings of police officers in the USA since 2000. "Among the findings: * Legal purchase was the leading source of weapons used to kill police officers. In 107 slayings, the killers acquired their firearms legally. In 170 deaths, The Post could not determine how the shooters got their guns, including 29 killings in which weapons were not recovered. * Stolen guns turned up in 77 deaths. Separately, guns obtained or taken from relatives or friends who legally owned them were used in 46 killings. Fifty-one officers were killed when their department-issued firearms or another officer's gun were turned against them. In 41 instances, guns were illegally obtained on the streets through sale or barter. Sixteen times, someone bought a weapon for a person prohibited from having a gun, an unlawful transaction known as a straw purchase. The straw buyers were federally prosecuted in fewer than half of those cases. Three were illegally purchased at gun shows or from private sellers. * The two deadliest situations for police are traffic stops and domestic disputes. Ninety-one of the officers were killed while making traffic stops; 76 were responding to domestic disturbance calls. The officers killed at traffic stops were generally slain by felons wielding illegal guns; the weapons used to kill police in domestic situations were often obtained through legal purchases. Only 13 percent of the weapons in the traffic stops were legal, compared with 47 percent in the domestic calls." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html?sid=ST2010112104787 These findings are not consistent with the pro-gun lobby's frequent claims that illegal weapons are overwhelmingly responsible for gun deaths and that, therefore, tightening gun laws would only impact law abiding legal gun owners while doing nothing to control illegal guns.

joether -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 3:52:16 AM)
Chipping away the 2nd? Fuck.... Most Americans in 2014 have no idea what the founding fathers had in mind for this amendment back in the 18th century. Further are we weighing the needs of the many against those of the individual? Or the individual against the individual? One persons says "I should be allowed 'x'", and another says "no". Who is right? How do we measure being more 'right'? By votes? Politicians in office? Taxes? Which state is the oldest? Who flies more American flags per 100,000 population? We'll get no where fast. An we know this, since we haven't gotten anywhere since this issue erupted in the 1960's. One side feels firearms should be unrestricted in many regards and circumstances. The other states only 'authorities' should have access to such arms. Yet, no mention of a 'middle ground' seems possible. That its either one extreme or the other. With violence being the method to 'settle' differences. Am I the only one here that feels this is just plain insane? How many gun threats have come up on this here forum? How many were ended with us agreeing to the common ground stuff and agreeing to give ground on somethings to gain on others? So might we try a new approach? Can anyone besides myself 'come out from the foxhole' for five nanoseconds on another path? One in which we agree that liberals, conservatives and even moderates, do raise good points? And the answer is 'no'. The liberals will not state it, unless the conservatives do. Conservatives will not unless liberals do. Neither liberal nor conservative will acknowledge moderates even exist in the discussion (being looked upon as mere pawns of the other side when the views don't match their own). So what can....REALLY...be discussed, and headway made, towards a better system when no side desires for a change? You must all enjoy mass shootings. Do you have a cable channel devoted to watching those injured by bullets in the ER's across the nation? Say 'Well, if Americans just agreed with me...." to the grieving family that just lost their loved one(s)? Do you enjoy digging the holes in the ground, to lay the coffins within? Of course not! Only someone devoid of emotion would 'enjoy' that! I dont go into the idea of modifying the second or repealing the 2nd lightly. The real lost is not repealing or modifying it; its that most Americans dont even know the real concepts of the amendment. The damage to this amendment was done long ago. And no one seem to care, on each side. But dont worry, we'll be discussing the next mass shooting within the next two or three weeks from now (sadly that is the average). This thread will be a memory at best on that thread. The different sides pushing their ideological crap with fanatical devotion. Mean while, the victim(s) lay dead, and a local community try to understand.....WHY? Who here....REALLY...wants to discuss a better path for this nation? Not a liberal, nor conservative path. Not a Republican nor Democrat 'path'. But a path that we agree to as a society, and live with the consequences? That we will not get 100% of what we want/demand. Maybe not even 60%. But doing nothing (which we do at current) seems to do nothing good for us.

crazyml -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 5:04:36 AM)
Has has been gently explained to you, talking about one of the amendments on a thread that sets out to discuss the amendments is only a derailment if you're a fucking moron. But then.... To your OP. Now, it's absolutely wrong to try to "chip away" at laws rather than repealing them or modifying them through a democratic process. But the constitution has placed enormous barriers against the right of citizens of the USA to democratically change their own laws. So, without some massive constitutional crisis (which is bound to happen sometime in the next 50-100 years), "chipping away" is the only way to take laws that were passed 200 years ago and make them fit for the 21st C. It's a shame, and every day I wake up and thank goodness that I live in a functioning democracy that allows its citizens to change laws.

hot4bondage -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 6:17:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 1) No, he's not -- that's you wanting only opinions that you like. 2) The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be repealed -- it needs updated language so that the NRA can stop pretending it says something else. Justice Stevens retired in 2010 at the end of the second-longest tenure in Supreme Court history. (The only justice to serve longer is the one he replaced in 1975, William Douglas, with 36 years). Now Justice Stevens has written a book on the Constitution called Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. The title says it all. One of the amendments Justice Stevens would like to change is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Justice Stevens believes five words should be added. He would like to add “when serving in the militia,” so the last part would read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.” Stevens' wording would have the government guaranteeing the rights of the government. Same as North Korea. Do you really think that was the intent of the folks who just committed treason against their king? The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the peoples' inherent rights from the government. The only thing clarified here is that Stevens was a statist.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 6:19:53 AM)
Yeah, all those North Korea type nations, like the UK, Canada . . .

hot4bondage -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 7:05:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Yeah, all those North Korea type nations, like the UK, Canada . . . Like the UK is some bastion of freedom. You can't even make good porn over there anymore. My point was that Stevens would have reworded the 2nd amendment to grant more power to the government. That would make the 2nd serve the opposite purpose of the rest of the document. In other words, he pulled it out of his ass.

crazyml -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 7:16:45 AM)
At least in the UK the democratically elected representatives can change laws.... I appreciate how utterly confusing this concept might be, but the way it works is this... if the people of the UK decide that they want tighter restrictions on pornography, their elected representatives have to take action. If on the other hand they wanted more relaxed laws, the same would apply. It's super neat. Democracy, that is.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 8:51:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Yeah, all those North Korea type nations, like the UK, Canada . . . Like the UK is some bastion of freedom. You can't even make good porn over there anymore. My point was that Stevens would have reworded the 2nd amendment to grant more power to the government. That would make the 2nd serve the opposite purpose of the rest of the document. In other words, he pulled it out of his ass. Unlike all that quality porn coming out of North Korea. You just get sillier and sillier.

slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 10:52:54 AM)
Well it is,afterall,a silly thread [:)] But back to the original question. Any "tweaking" done would ,of necessity,have to begin with the Second. We need a reading that reflects the reality of today's society. We need a reckoning with the losses we are experiencing ,how we can sit and just wait for what we know is the next national tragedy is beyond me.We all know that sooner or later we will have another school shooting,a movie theater ,a work place,a mall. It is ,sadly,inevitable . How many more do we continence before we reach a national consensus that we must do something ?

mnottertail -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 11:07:56 AM)
Shouldnt the gravamen of the discourse be, why would BamaD want to chip away at slavemikes 1st amendment rights?

GotSteel -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/30/2014 11:19:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. I suspect that those trying to make changes to the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment likely(or with the poster in question explicitly) don't view their position that way. One could for instance note that the purpose of the second amendment is to form a citizens militia and point to Switzerland's citizens militia as an example of a citizenry who are well armed, more regulated to require competence and have fewer needless gun death issues. One can be pro-2nd amendment while being against throwing guns at the incompetent and dangerously mentally ill. You do it by being for something along the lines of Switzerland's interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02