"Common Sense Gun Laws for Mass Shootings" - Page 15

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 211 to 218 of 218
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    The Republic
    Posts
    161,608
    Rep Power
    30

    Default "Common Sense Gun Laws for Mass Shootings"

    A lot of calls for more laws. I'm ready.

    You propose the law you want and we'll debate it.
    "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier"
    -Samuel Johnson

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #211
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,748
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    Are you sure you want to move the bar back to 1789?

    Back then, the army of every major power in the world issued smooth boar muskets to their troops that couldnít hit the side of a barn at 100 meters. On the other hand, the Patriot Militias, which were manned with citizen volunteers who brought their own personal weapons to the fight, were armed with rifles that were accurate enough to hit a man at 400 meters. In other words, the people had better arms technology than the Kingís Army.

    You are still avoiding the fact that between the 2nd and 5th Amendments, we Americans have the right to keep and bear arms without prior restraint to do so. One of the principles that the USA was founded on is that the preservation of freedom carries risk. He who gives up his liberty for security neither has nor deserves either. I am truly sorry that you Aussies donít understand that.

    Samm it is very simple: we Aussies don't have an irrational fear of our Federal Government. We may not like it sometimes; we may not have a very high opinion of them at times. But we don't feel that there will ever be any circumstances where we would need to take arms against an Australian Federal Government. I will also point out that we had an all volunteer force in both world wars and didn't feel the need to wait until 1917 or 1941 to volunteer to fight.

    I will also point out that by definition the 2A makes changes to the original constitution and to try to lessen the changes of ever increasing bloody and fatal gun massacre the 2A should itself be changed.
    obscurum per obscurius
    ignotum per ignotius

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #212
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    99,003
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westaussie View Post
    Samm it is very simple: we Aussies don't have an irrational fear of our Federal Government. We may not like it sometimes; we may not have a very high opinion of them at times. But we don't feel that there will ever be any circumstances where we would need to take arms against an Australian Federal Government. I will also point out that we had an all volunteer force in both world wars and didn't feel the need to wait until 1917 or 1941 to volunteer to fight.
    Good for you. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.

    I will also point out that by definition the 2A makes changes to the original constitution and to try to lessen the changes of ever increasing bloody and fatal gun massacre the 2A should itself be changed.
    False. The Bill of Rights is part of the original Constitution. It is an addendum, not a modification. It was added specifically to limit the power of the Government.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #213
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,748
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    Good for you. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.



    False. The Bill of Rights is part of the original Constitution. It is an addendum, not a modification. It was added specifically to limit the power of the Government.
    Are you really trying to assert that the second amendment does not AMEND the original constitution?
    obscurum per obscurius
    ignotum per ignotius

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #214
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    99,003
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westaussie View Post
    Are you really trying to assert that the second amendment does not AMEND the original constitution?
    That s correct. The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments, is an integral part of the Document. And it was all ratified by the States at the same time as a single Document.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #215
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,748
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    That s correct. The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments, is an integral part of the Document. And it was all ratified by the States at the same time as a single Document.
    It is either part of the original constitution in which case it is NOT an amendment at all OR it was not part of the original constitution and is therefore an amendment. It CAN'T be BOTH part of the original constitution and contemporaneously an amendment.
    obscurum per obscurius
    ignotum per ignotius

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #216
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    99,003
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westaussie View Post
    It is either part of the original constitution in which case it is NOT an amendment at all OR it was not part of the original constitution and is therefore an amendment. It CAN'T be BOTH part of the original constitution and contemporaneously an amendment.
    You are not paying attention. The Bill of Rights IS part of the original Constitution as ratified by the States in 1789. The Founders listed them as amendents because they enumerate individual rights rather than detailing government operations and they were forward thinking enough to know that more rights needing protection from the government would be necessary as the government matured and sought to assume more and more power (as all governments do.) Listing the original bill of rights as Amendments made adding to them more logical and comprehensive than if they were buried in an Article in the text separate from future protected rights.

    Why are you arguing about this? It is all recorded in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and in the papers of many of the Founders.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #217
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    1,748
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    You are not paying attention. The Bill of Rights IS part of the original Constitution as ratified by the States in 1789. The Founders listed them as amendents because they enumerate individual rights rather than detailing government operations and they were forward thinking enough to know that more rights needing protection from the government would be necessary as the government matured and sought to assume more and more power (as all governments do.) Listing the original bill of rights as Amendments made adding to them more logical and comprehensive than if they were buried in an Article in the text separate from future protected rights.

    Why are you arguing about this? It is all recorded in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and in the papers of many of the Founders.

    The point is very much that the 2A is not sacrosanct; it can and SHOULD be amended based on the continuing and bloodier gun massacres.
    obscurum per obscurius
    ignotum per ignotius

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #218
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    99,003
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westaussie View Post
    The point is very much that the 2A is not sacrosanct; it can and SHOULD be amended based on the continuing and bloodier gun massacres.
    That is one of the most irrational things you have posted in this thread. The Second Amendment has not caused ANY deaths, let alone gun massacres. In fact, no gun has ever killed anyone.


    But you are right (even though that was NOT even remotely the point you were making) ... nothing in the Constitution is sacrosanct. Everything in it can be changed if enough people want to change it (that part is in the Constitution too, but we could get rid of it I suppose.) But just because something can be done does not in anyway mean that it should be done. Maybe you would have better luck getting rid of the Second Amendment if you started with the 5th. Of course, you not being a US Citizen, you really have no say in the matter, do you.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  18. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •