quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

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.

Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment per se. The interpretation that this means guns must flow unfettered no matter the circumstances nor the cost is when it crosses from "right" to "absurdity promoted by morons."

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

"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"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

"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"?

how many leftists know what the right of the people shall not be infringed means
at the time everyone was part of the militia
by Federal law every male between 18 and 50 is part of the militia so while this sounds good it is BS

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment per se. The interpretation that this means guns must flow unfettered no matter the circumstances nor the cost is when it crosses from "right" to "absurdity promoted by morons."

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

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.

You show your ignorance of out system.
First, the Constitution is not a series of laws, until you understand this you argue from ignorance.

quote:


The constitution is the framework for the creation of laws, much different from being laws.

quote:


The framework is deliberately and wisely hard to change, laws are much different.
Changing a 200 year old law is a simple matter of getting a simple majority of both houses and a Presidential signature, or a 2/3 majority in each house.
If you had read I started this thread because I knew the gun control debate would take over and I didn't want it to derail the general discussion of the wisdom of undermining the Constitution.
Thus nothing in your post has any validity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Apparently a lot more bodies [&o]

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Once again someone comes along and mischaracterizes my viewpoint to be one of repealing the second,rather than of re-interpreting it .

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

"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"?

how many leftists know what the right of the people shall not be infringed means
at the time everyone was part of the militia
by Federal law every male between 18 and 50 is part of the militia so while this sounds good it is BS

So you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment assumes membership of an organized militia?

Oh dear.

That would fuck your argument right up the arse.

You dolt.