Elementary school shooting

When facing the principle of avoiding human deaths

If the argument is that too many deaths are a result, is reasonable to address the largest cause. We don't spend a lot of time working out hurricane evacuation routes in the midwest of the country. Then yes, logic faces logic.

Does the UK?

 

Ah, its different in the UK. New laws generally take precedence over old ones which is why there are still laws on the books going back hundreds of years, there is no need to rescind them as any conflict is generally handled by subsequent legislation.

The comedy example that was rescinded eventually, was legislation which meant it was legal within the walls of York to use a bow to shoot a Scotsman. Obviously you'd still get done for Murder/GBH depending on your skill with a bow because later legislation made killing even a Scot illegal.

 

The age isn't the point. The facts have changed since its creation 200 years ago. You have to reconsider whether it is still suitable in this modern age.
Numerous theories of physics have been overturned. Maybe they'll replace relativity with little strings instead. Pythagoras is however eternal. You can do a proof with pen and paper in a minutes.

When debating it relevancy its not a sound argument to simply state that the status quo should remain in place as a lone point. You need to have an argument weighing up the pros and cons which I outlined.

The first amendment for example works perfectly and I wouldn't argue against it even if it was a million year old. Its a perfect foundation for the relationship of people and state.

 

Nothing has changed in the way you perceive them to have changed, the 2nd amendment is as suitable today as it was 200 years ago. In fact, the entire constitution is as valid and important today as it was back then. Perhaps even more so today.

And as pointed out, more people die from hammers and knifes.

The primary purpose of the tools matters little to the family of the victim killed by a knife. As pointed out before, you can kill with just about anything, cars being no exception (which was the example I used). Its primary purpose therefore becomes irrelevant. At the end of the day it is the intent that matters, not the main purpose of the tool, because the purpose of the tool is also decided by the intent of the user.

 

12,664 murder. 8,585 by guns.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

That's your viewpoint and fine. We can debate that. But can we please don't just go the second amendment says we have the right to bare arms and end of debate. It can and I believe should be amended.

 

Well, there is nothing to debate, in the sense that the 2nd amendment is there, you just want accept it. As a matter of fact, the government want accept it either, since they appear to be hell bent on abolishing it, in fact, I would argue that they would love to see the entire constitution go because it is standing it their way.

By the way, the 1st amendment it is direclty linked to the 2nd ammendment.

And don't you just love statistics? I wonder how many deaths are suicide by cop? How many is gang related? How many are accidents? And how many are the result of suicides?

There will always be people who want to see the world burn, the government can't protect us from those people. Arguing otherwise is nothing more than blanking of unsavory facts.

Your faith in the state, I put my faith in people.

 

We are currently on page 23 of this discussion, I am not actively participating in an ongoing discussion to "end the debate". I was merely explaining the verbage of the 2nd amendment, who it limits and why. You've now gone from saying it's irrelevant due to age (consequently, this argument is not said about any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights) to saying it should be amended, which is a totally valid point to debate.

All I'm asking is that people honestly understand what the Amendment states. Amending it is a reasonable and logical argument. But discounting the validity of it for reason of time, etc erodes the entire document that our society is founded on categorically.

 

@walle
That response is exactly what I'm talking about.
Your government isn't some tyranny intent on establishing a dictatorship. Much of Western Europe has greater civil liberties and more closely abide by the first amendments spirit than america despite fewer guns. In the event of a coup its not feasible for small arms to take on US military. The chances of the resulting civil war ever establishing a new peaceful democratic regime basically zero.

You realise murder rate is separate from suicide rate. Reduced gang related deaths would be one of the big plus points. Same for reduced accidentals.
Suicide rates which currently stand at 38,364 might well be reduced due to the lack of such an easy to use instrument.

 

Sloppy wording by me. Apologizes.
The past two centuries has seen a lot of change and its worth considering the second amendment needs to change to reflect this.

 

I think he does think that argument can be used for all the amendments, as an example he said the 1st is still valid today, each needs to be assessed as to whether they are suitable in their current form for the world as it is today.

 

To answer your question, in part: I could make a loong list of unconstitutional actions taken for the past 10 years, and it is getting worse.

That said.

If people think the constitution needs to be updated, because we are in a "new" world, or whatever else infantile argument presented as the ultimate argument winner to be used when steam rolling over the constitution, then sponsor an amendment. That's the constitutional medthod for changing the powers of the government granted by the people. But until then changes made are NOT in the people's conscent. They are unconstitutional. They are illegal.

The rights of the government must never come before the rights of the people. The government is there to serve the people, not the other way around.

It worries me that words like freedom and tyranny has become almost archaic, they have been repeated so often, people are more operation on feelings rather than logical thought. I'm also sick and tired of people giving lip service to freedom and personal responsibility, yet will have none of it. They are fighting it even.

 

Agreed. But don't think that this amendment hasn't been under nearly constant scrutiny and argument for almost the entire history of the Constitution. A Constitution that has been amended 17 times since it was originally radified. Americans have not, during all that time, felt the need to actually amend it.

My point is that it hasn't been amended not from a lack of dialog and challenge and it's not because the Constitution can't be amended (it has 17 times, 2 of those nullify each other).

 

It's not a tyrrany because of built in checks which include the 2nd Amendment. I'm sorry but if you look at history, all the most terrible tyrannical regimes first steps were to disarm its citizens from: Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Kosavars, Mao, etc etc.

This may sound like hyperbole but it is also modern historical fact.

Saying were not a tyrrany so we can get remove guns from citizens is like a town at the base of a dam saying "we never get flooding, so we don't need this stupid and antiquated dam"

 

Well.

+70 years ago we saw a major dictatorship in Europe. I would argue it caused tremendous suffering. Need I also remind the readers that the population was first disarmed.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA, ordinary citizens don't need guns, as they having guns doesn't serve the State - Heinrich Himmler".

+1

 

We are not immune, criminal law is a bit different than Constitutional law. We do have plenty of contradictory laws on the books in that regard. Constitutional amendments address the definition of rights and establishing and limiting the role of the Federal government. Criminal and civil law is a whole other kettle of fish. Then again, our criminal law is based on English Common Law so it stands to reason that it has some crazy stuff

 

I'm not proposing just the executive deleting the second amendment. A referendum and discussion on the issue is obvious.

Hitler came to power on an electoral majority. There was a tremendous amount of support for him. Once nearly every man was armed there was still no opposition to him.
The other examples are all civil war or post war power vacuums were power was seized despite the population being very well armed.

When was the last time a gun was used by someone to oppose government infringement of rights? And effectively?

 

It wasn’t as much support for Hitler as you would like to have our board members believe, and frankly. I am not going to discuss this with someone who is doing a "10" minute Google search just so that he can post back.

No offense.

What's your point, exactly?

 

I want to say look at South America. Although that spawned another dictatorship. D:

In any case though. I can't deny that it is in the Amendments and those are technically and still legally binding. And because the 2nd amendment allows us the right we are and should be able to.

That said, limiting the sales isn't too far off. Although the classist argument might arise. As I said a while back. Gun control is pointless, because it directly contradicts the Constitution. But leaving such easy access to rifles is another story. Compromise., compromise.

 

Well if guns are needed to safeguard freedom how come they're (fortunately) never used in that role?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
43.9% of the vote in a national election seems like popular support.
If he was so unpopular and guns so easily available with it being a war time for half his time in power how come there was no armed uprising against the government?

 

Just one small example of what Hitler did can be seen in Austria. Yes, he was extremely popular, Austria's economy was in the tank and he was voted overwhelmingly based on his proposed promises. After he had achieved legitimacy and was prepared to go to the next horrific level is when the guns needed to be removed. After that, there was nothing that could be done. History has shown several times over that tyranny does not have to be born in the form of an overthrow. But these despots do not achieve "tyranny" status until there can be no possible challenge of power. There have been several dictatorships that weren't tyrranies, in fact more than not. But disarming the public is very consistant among those that have tyrranical designs.

The logical question therefor if Hitler was so popular, why did he find the need to disarm the citizenry (especially during a time where gun violence was not a rampant, or even notable, problem in Germany and Austria)? And why does he have this thing in common with others like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot and many others? It was only after he disarmed the citizens did he start carting off the mentally challenged children to reeducation centers never to be returned and the agenda in schools when from fundamentals of learning to how great Hitler was and women who were promised that their place was to be home caring for their children to working in designated jobs.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi