Author Topic: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)  (Read 30622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« on: December 15, 2012, 02:55:27 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10079
  • Tommy Points: 1090
The recent tragedy in Connecticut got me thinking, and it kept goiong back to gun control and the impact of the second amendement on that debate. My first impression was the second amendement does not justify the access to assauklt weapons for ordinary citizens, and if it does then we should make all efforts to get rid of the second amendment. Then it hit me that we often talk about the US Constitution as if it was unassailable and a perfect document. It is definitely not a perfect document, it did not treat black or women very well that is for sure. So why cant the second amendment be one of the imperfections of the current document. Why is the second amendment seen as sarcosanct? It is not, and should not be.

The USC Constitution is a dynamic document, it lays out broad principles that should be adapted to realities of the time. So far the treatment of the second amendment has been anything but dynamic - we allow people to buy assaulkt weapons as if the framers of the second amendment had an inkling that there would be weapons that could unleash 700 engine block piercing bullets per minute. Why is the second amendment used to justify private ownership of assault weapons. It is time to scrap the second amendment if it justifies the private ownership of assault weapons.

It is also time to revisit the US Constitution to adapt it to modern day realities.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 10:53:03 PM by Redz »

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2012, 03:06:46 PM »

Offline The Rondo Show

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2898
  • Tommy Points: 364
  • Hook 'Em
Please keep your political agenda out of the Celtics' basketball talk
DKC Suns

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2012, 03:15:25 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18943
  • Tommy Points: 1840
Think there's another part of the forum for this stuff.

Also, it is my understanding that amendments to the constitution are interpreted in different ways all the time.  Don't necessarily need an amendment to fix things.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2012, 03:17:57 PM »

Online jambr380

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8933
  • Tommy Points: 1067
  • Sometimes there's no sane reason for optimism.
Please keep your political agenda out of the Celtics' basketball talk

I am not one to overly participate in the off-topic forums, or any others for that matter, but political discussions have been on this blog for far far longer than you have been a member here. He has given his opinion, but has also asked the question of others. Who are you to tell him to keep his views to himself? Let Jeff, Roy, or the other mods make the decision of what should or shouldn't be on here.

Edit: If this is just in the wrong part of the forums, it will be assigned to where it should be. You should have probably just asked for that to be done.

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2012, 03:24:44 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2990
  • Tommy Points: 72
This should be in Off Topic: Current Events. I'm sure an admin will move this thread. I won't comment until it's moved.

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2012, 03:25:58 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10079
  • Tommy Points: 1090
I apologize I did not mean to offend anyone. Perhaps the mods should please move the thread. Again, I am sorry, I did not know there was another forum for this since I have seen discussions on the constitution here.

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2012, 03:37:49 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38461
  • Tommy Points: -27403
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
My first impression was the second amendement does not justify the access to assauklt weapons for ordinary citizens, and if it does then we should make all efforts to get rid of the second amendment.

The issue here is that the weapons used here aren't ordinarily defined as "assault weapons".  Neither the handguns or the rifle were fully automatic.

I'm supportive of all kinds of gun control laws.  I'm fine with limiting clip size, increasing jail sentences for those who use guns, restricting when and where people can have guns, increasing restrictions on those with criminal or mental health backgrounds, and banning fully automatic weapons. 

I'm not in favor of banning hand guns used for self-defense in the home, or rifles used for hunting.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2012, 03:38:59 PM »

Offline JSD

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10576
  • Tommy Points: 1265
The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

We live under imperfect laws in an imperfect world where there are and always have been a percentage (and a VERY small one at that) of people who are either insane or just plain evil. It is IMPOSSIBLE to rid our society or any society of firearms, short of maybe introducing a completely fascist state. Modern technology makes the world a much smaller and more immediate place than it ever was. It also makes it SEEM scarier and a manifestation of that is that the US Constitution SEEMS to be outdated or unable to function in the modern world. I say that nothing could be further from the truth. Human nature has not changed and the Constitution is based on NATURAL laws. Those poor people killed in Connecticut--as unspeakably horrible as it is--happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... but that is all.

IF we abandon our Constitution in favor of something that invites someone--ANYONE--telling us what's best for us and imposing it upon us if we disagree (aka Fascism) then we will live as slaves and serfs, dependent upon the whims and subject to the fickle whimsy of whoever the demagogue happens to be. Given that choice, I'll take my chances under the US Constitution.

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2012, 03:40:08 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10079
  • Tommy Points: 1090
since the crotch for liberal gun laws is the second amendment, is it not time for we the people to get rid of this amendment, or to amend it? Or do you consider that too dangerous.

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2012, 03:42:19 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10079
  • Tommy Points: 1090
The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

We live under imperfect laws in an imperfect world where there are and always have been a percentage (and a VERY small one at that) of people who are either insane or just plain evil. It is IMPOSSIBLE to rid our society or any society of firearms, short of maybe introducing a completely fascist state. Modern technology makes the world a much smaller and more immediate place than it ever was. It also makes it SEEM scarier and a manifestation of that is that the US Constitution SEEMS to be outdated or unable to function in the modern world. I say that nothing could be further from the truth. Human nature has not changed and the Constitution is based on NATURAL laws. Those poor people killed in Connecticut--as unspeakably horrible as it is--happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... but that is all.

IF we abandon our Constitution in favor of something that invites someone--ANYONE--telling us what's best for us and imposing it upon us if we disagree (aka Fascism) then we will live as slaves and serfs, dependent upon the whims and subject to the fickle whimsy of whoever the demagogue happens to be. Given that choice, I'll take my chances under the US Constitution.

I considered this argument, but do we really have any chance of being as armed as the state? If the state really wants to enslave us, with military might, do we stand a chance?

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2012, 03:51:41 PM »

Online Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17407
  • Tommy Points: 1134
Maybe they should get of the militia part and just keep the right to bear arms.  We have not used militias for nigh a century and to be honest they would get owned by regular troops in a conflict.   I am like Audie Murphy when I play paintball with guys who have not had training as I was a soldier.  I imagine it would be even worse with real weapons.

I am for reasonable gun laws, I do not think we need assault weapons.  They have one purpose to kill people.   I would also be for having metal detectors in schools and armed guards.  It's good enough for judges  why not kids?

People should be able to hunt and possess firearms for self defense but not assault weapons.   But folks this is not going to happen the NRA are better at lobbying than this tragedy will be at swaying public opinion.  I think gun shows ought to be regulated.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 04:28:58 PM by Celtics4ever »

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2012, 12:05:56 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2990
  • Tommy Points: 72
No.

The reality is people over weight incidences like Newtown, Aurora, etc. because they get a huge amount of media attention. The actual risk posed by these kinds of shooters is small. And when these guys are thwarted by a CCP holder, its not reported: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen


Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2012, 12:09:04 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
The answer is yes--the Constitution should always been open for revision and update.

And, voila, we have a whole process for it. In fact I believe the end results are often known as Amendments.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2012, 12:10:08 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
No.

The reality is people over weight incidences like Newtown, Aurora, etc. because they get a huge amount of media attention. The actual risk posed by these kinds of shooters is small. And when these guys are thwarted by a CCP holder, its not reported: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen
Right, and if the Oregon shooter didn't have a gun in the first place, it wouldn't have mattered that the "armed citizen" wasn't armed. This is just plain ridiculous.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Should US Const be revisited?
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2012, 12:37:33 PM »

Offline ebrick0340

  • Semi Ojeleye
  • Posts: 44
  • Tommy Points: 16
No.

The reality is people over weight incidences like Newtown, Aurora, etc. because they get a huge amount of media attention. The actual risk posed by these kinds of shooters is small. And when these guys are thwarted by a CCP holder, its not reported: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen



Wow, this post made me shake my head. Tell that to the poor parents in Newtown. People are "Over weighting" an incident where 20 helpless 5-7 year olds were murdered in cold blood?  Really?

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required