Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[KB]

Oh I am actually very aware of it Joey but when I said I found the article interesting I was hoping someone could show some form of solid discrediting because it all has a certain ring of truth to it.

 

Ken 

[JoeyB]

 They all have a ring of truth to them, but not much more than that. 

[Mike on a bike]

Disinformation is always mixed with truth, that is the certain ring you hear do not be deceived.

Yes we are a suspicious lot especially of government , we are Americans.

[freddy333]

Whoa Mike this is not and should be a racist discussion, if it becomes such I will lock it up.

Ken

Ditto. Please debate & keep the personal comments out.

[rrari1]

KB ... to answer your question, no I am not expecting to have to join a revolution. It will mainly be a symbolic personal politcal protest.   As for your saying a valid justification hasn't been given, well I would respectfully disagree. It might not meet your definition of 'valid' but that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd Amendment includes the words 'shall not be infringed'. On it's face, that means the US Government isn't supposed to do anything that restricts in any way a citizens right to own arms. Forget restricting certain types of arms, even requiring registration, background checks, etc. in theory falls outside that.  

I find it odd that so many people in defending the right to have guns, argue that their main reason is not that they believe in the logic of such an idea, but that it is in the constitution, and the constitution could never be changed for any reason as it was perfect in its first drafting. Constitutions are changed all the time. Laws often need to be changed due to changing societal views, or changing circumstances. There were many things that were acceptable in the times of the original drafting of the constitution of the USA which are no longer considered acceptable. Would you argue that we should go back to a world where women can not vote, and slavery was acceptable, as that is how things were in the times the constitution was drafted. In a democracy laws can always be updated and changed as long as the majority agree. I think this constant updating of laws has overall been a force of good in the world.

[mastrmindalliance]

You can feel as royal as you like. We have no royalty here, but we do lead. And did. And you followed. 

HAHAHAH HAHAHAH HAA How clever of you to inject some quality humor into such a depressing topic. "We lead, you follow"... Ha ha classic. I'm going to call you Joe the Entertainer. Or maybe Joey the Clown. On topic. It amazes me that a nation that has a culture of guns also has a history of extreme gun violence yet doesn't see the correlation. Surely no one else in the world thinks this way though. Probably just me.

[Mike on a bike]

" I think this constant updating of laws has overall been a force of good in the world."

 Overall so not always and in this case not a good idea, and yes that is my opinion.

[Mike on a bike]

Member fraggle was in a bad bike accident years ago in a recent thread he posted (UK or OZ).

" I guess you'll be like me then, a life of pain killers, arguing with the doctors at the drug review as they're always trying to cut them down, not believing anyone is actually in pain nowadays!"

 

What is this drug review board I wonder. We will keep our guns and you guys can keep your socialism ,deal?

I have three kids they take a chance here in the land of guns , chance to defend there freedom, home and self.

No I did not forget the chance to get killed that comes with the territory, can not have it both ways.

If you think you can you are only fooling yourself or have been fooled.

[JoeyB]

HAHAHAH HAHAHAH HAA How clever of you to inject some quality humor into such a depressing topic. "We lead, you follow"... Ha ha classic. I'm going to call you Joe the Entertainer. Or maybe Joey the Clown. On topic. It amazes me that a nation that has a culture of guns also has a history of extreme gun violence yet doesn't see the correlation. Surely no one else in the world thinks this way though. Probably just me.

Thanks, but I was laughing at you, not with you. 

 

Must be you. 

[cjjoyce1]

I find it odd that so many people in defending the right to have guns, argue that their main reason is not that they believe in the logic of such an idea, but that it is in the constitution, and the constitution could never be changed for any reason as it was perfect in its first drafting. Constitutions are changed all the time. Laws often need to be changed due to changing societal views, or changing circumstances. There were many things that were acceptable in the times of the original drafting of the constitution of the USA which are no longer considered acceptable. Would you argue that we should go back to a world where women can not vote, and slavery was acceptable, as that is how things were in the times the constitution was drafted. In a democracy laws can always be updated and changed as long as the majority agree. I think this constant updating of laws has overall been a force of good in the world.

 

The U.S. Constitution is not changed all the time.  It does contain language for doing so and constitutional amendments do come up from time to time.  What you need to see, however, is that the things you bring up weren't written protections in the original document ("fundamental law" as it's referred to) that were later changed to reflect public opinion - Women's suffrage isn't a uniquely American thing either, nor did the United States lead the way for the world.  The original framers of the Constitution wrestled with the idea of abolishing slavery when they wrote the original document.  Congress prohibited slavery in the newly acquired Northern Territories and by 1800 most states had passed laws prohibiting slavery (once again, the sovereignty of the states prevails).  Slavery was ended in 1865 and Women's Suffrage happened in 1920 - 55 years apart.  But one can surely argue that these two things do have basis in Individual Rights and Freedoms which many would argue is exactly what the 2nd Amendment guarantees.  Wouldn't it be going backwards and almost against the principles of the constitution to use it to take away the rights of individuals?  However, I am one who sees the 2nd Amendment as a States Rights issue more than just an individual rights issue, but that's another discussion. 

 

It's very easy to live in a cozy world and say, "well. . we don't need those laws anymore.  That's never going to happen here again."  All I have to do is turn on the news to see people in Northern Africa and the Middle East who are throwing off the shackles of oppressive and tyrannical governments, many of which were not in place that long in an historical sense and who were ushered in under thunderous applause and "nationalist pride".  These things do happen.  Repeatedly.  Throughout history.  Throughout the world.  Just as I said before, do not think that just because we are in the future we are smarter and wiser than those who came before us.  And do not presume to foresee any future without careful, thoughtful, non-emotional consideration.

[tomhorn]

I find it odd that so many people in defending the right to have guns, argue that their main reason is not that they believe in the logic of such an idea, but that it is in the constitution, and the constitution could never be changed for any reason as it was perfect in its first drafting. Constitutions are changed all the time. Laws often need to be changed due to changing societal views, or changing circumstances. There were many things that were acceptable in the times of the original drafting of the constitution of the USA which are no longer considered acceptable. Would you argue that we should go back to a world where women can not vote, and slavery was acceptable, as that is how things were in the times the constitution was drafted. In a democracy laws can always be updated and changed as long as the majority agree. I think this constant updating of laws has overall been a force of good in the world.

 

BINGO! Someone finally got it.

 

Don't like gun ownership, semi-automatic weapons, large clips, 'assault rifles' ... fine. Change the Constitution. As many have said it was meant to be a living and breathing document, and there were specific procedures established to do it.

 

Do that, and I'll be totally fine with it. Ignore the Constitution, and I'll take a stand against it, even if it doesn't affect me, or if I could really care less about what's being proposed.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of gun loving, NRA members and other folks who oppose what's being contemplated because of the guns. For me, I will never own a gun or a clip that is currently being contemplated for banning. That's not what this is about for me. This is a Constitutional issue, plain and simple. Too many people are trying to rationalize it away because some children were tragically killed, wounded, and/or mentally traumitized by a crazy person. I understand, and empathize. It all seems pretty easy, an 'assault weapon' was used, people were killed. Let's just ban them so this kind of thing will never happen again. It's easy.

 

BUT ... to use your examples, what if the 'majority' decided tomorrow that women should no longer be able to vote, or that it was acceptable to keep slaves? Would it be OK for the Congress to just pass a law, or for the President to sign an executive order reversing those Amendments?

 

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. It cannot be OK to handle one part of the Constitution one way, and another part of it differently. And you can't just use the excuse 'well society would never believe those things are OK anymore anyway' to dismiss the premise. No one can predict what will happen in the future.

 

 

It's very easy to live in a cozy world and say, "well. . we don't need those laws anymore.  That's never going to happen here again."  All I have to do is turn on the news to see people in Northern Africa and the Middle East who are throwing off the shackles of oppressive and tyrannical governments, many of which were not in place that long in an historical sense and who were ushered in under thunderous applause and "nationalist pride".  These things do happen.  Repeatedly.  Throughout history.  Throughout the world.  Just as I said before, do not think that just because we are in the future we are smarter and wiser than those who came before us.  And do not presume to foresee any future without careful, thoughtful, non-emotional consideration.

 

 

Exactly.

Edited January 14, 2013 by tomhorn

[txcollector]

....  But one can surely argue that these two things do have basis in Individual Rights and Freedoms which many would argue is exactly what the 2nd Amendment guarantees.  Wouldn't it be going backwards and almost against the principles of the constitution to use it to take away the rights of individuals?  ...

 

...  All I have to do is turn on the news to see people in Northern Africa and the Middle East who are throwing off the shackles of oppressive and tyrannical governments, many of which were not in place that long in an historical sense and who were ushered in under thunderous applause and "nationalist pride".  These things do happen.  Repeatedly.  Throughout history.  ...

 

 

 

First as I said previously even Scalia states that assault weapons are NOT included in these 2nd amendment rights. So explain to me how regulations on these dangerous and quite frankly unnecessary weapons has anything to do with "taking away rights"? You assume pre-exiting free for all approach to what is considered "an individual right to possess and carry firearms". Try buy a surface-to-air missile, a rocket launcher or a tank to see how today you don't have unlimited rights to own any kind of weapon you want.

 

Second, as with anything related to the US Bill of Rights there are rules and regulations for you to EXERCISE your right (free speech has limits, you have rules to petition the government, you have to register, be a citizen and resident of a certain area to be eligible to vote, etc.). Any time a discussion of regulations comes up someone loud tries to distort the conversation with a false claim of "taking away my rights".

 

As for using volatile and oppressive regimes as an argument for why the US population needs assault weapons, that's the kind of reductio ad absurdum that makes it impossible for reasonable people to even consider the positions of fervent NRA folks. When in the history of these United States of America has the ELECTED government even come close to the regimes of those dictators to grant arming the general population with military grade weapons? It's like saying everyone should buy a space suit since in theory we could all go to the moon. 

[Watchmeister]

I understand the argument that "if something violates the constitution change the constitution  or do nothing about it" approach. But that is not the way life works in the U.S. There is now technology which no one could plan for when it was written. The constitution did not envision a five pound readily portable maching gun (I have no idea what I am taking about on the gun front). And under that intrepretation there isn't anything to preclude you from running around with a stinger surface to air missile launcher . Under your interpretation I should be able to keep one of those freely in my house and we would deal with the consequences only after someone "violates" the law and shoots down an aircraft with you or I in it.

 

The best analogy is the violation of personal property under the constitution. Under the constitution one would have to physically enter my property to violate my privacy rights and as for warrants the only one needed to persecute me was when the police wanted to physically enter my house. As the technology advanced the laws changed. First we invented phones systems which allowed for wiretapping off-premise and then we concocted appropriate laws requiring warrants, etc. Then when we could be monitored as to everything we do via the internet, public and privately placed cameras, the use of heat sensing equipment to hunt down marijuana growers, etc. the laws have had to be be continually revised updated and revised to protect us from the government. The problem, with the constitution is that is is not a living breathing document as our forefathers may or may not have envisioned. It is an old piece pf paper subject to constant interpretation. And this is no different.

[freddy333]

I find it odd that so many people in defending the right to have guns, argue that their main reason is not that they believe in the logic of such an idea, but that it is in the constitution, and the constitution could never be changed for any reason as it was perfect in its first drafting.

Obviously, you have not read my posts (above) regarding the option to amend the Constitution if a majority of Americans disagree with its contents, instructions for which are also written into the Constitution.

I think this constant updating of laws has overall been a force of good in the world.

Considering the state of the rest of the world, I would say the jury is still out on that 1.

But in the United States, the Constitution has only been rarely amended. And, judging from the number of people from the rest of the world that continue to come to live in the US, the US must be doing something right.

[cjjoyce1]

First as I said previously even Scalia states that assault weapons are NOT included in these 2nd amendment rights. So explain to me how regulations on these dangerous and quite frankly unnecessary weapons has anything to do with "taking away rights"? You assume pre-exiting free for all approach to what is considered "an individual right to possess and carry firearms". Try buy a surface-to-air missile, a rocket launcher or a tank to see how today you don't have unlimited rights to own any kind of weapon you want.

 

Second, as with anything related to the US Bill of Rights there are rules and regulations for you to EXERCISE your right (free speech has limits, you have rules to petition the government, you have to register, be a citizen and resident of a certain area to be eligible to vote, etc.). Any time a discussion of regulations comes up someone loud tries to distort the conversation with a false claim of "taking away my rights".

 

As for using volatile and oppressive regimes as an argument for why the US population needs assault weapons, that's the kind of reductio ad absurdum that makes it impossible for reasonable people to even consider the positions of fervent NRA folks. When in the history of these United States of America has the ELECTED government even come close to the regimes of those dictators to grant arming the general population with military grade weapons? It's like saying everyone should buy a space suit since in theory we could all go to the moon. 

 

I don't recall Scalia coming right out with those words, but in District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008 (which he voted in favor of) he did remark that current law indeed supports an historical tradition of prohibiting unusual or dangerous weapons, you're quite right.  BTW, you cut off my quote at a critical point as I don't claim to be a "hide behind the 2nd as my individual rights".  My line about amending the constitution to take away rights wasn't meant to be in that vein, but as you state "reduction to the absurd".

 

When in the history of the U.S. has this happened?  Right in the very beginning which is why the 2nd Amendment exists, though you're right that we didn't elect King George III.  I talked about this several pages back.  The Colonists were living in a military/police state. 

[txcollector]

I don't recall Scalia coming right out with those words, but in District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008 (which he voted in favor of) he did remark that current law indeed supports an historical tradition of prohibiting unusual or dangerous weapons, you're quite right.  BTW, you cut off my quote at a critical point as I don't claim to be a "hide behind the 2nd as my individual rights".  My line about amending the constitution to take away rights wasn't meant to be in that vein, but as you state "reduction to the absurd".

 

When in the history of the U.S. has this happened?  Right in the very beginning which is why the 2nd Amendment exists, though you're right that we didn't elect King George III.  I talked about this several pages back.  The Colonists were living in a military/police state. 

 

Correct. Scalia admits the 2nd amendment has limits. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12

 

Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms. "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote

 

I missed your point on the Constitution. It wasn't clear to me that you are advocating that historically amendments were never designed to take away rights but to extend them, so there's no evidence that this would be the case now.

 

Personally I don't  believe we need new amendments as the current ones just needs clarification by the SCOTUS and even new regulations wouldn't take away anyone's actual rights.

 

Finally not to split hairs but the USA were formed AFTER the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written so in the history of the USA there was no scenario were the people lived under a dictator rule. Using the colonial time as as example of what might happen in the future of this Federation is absurd (in fact using any 18th social constructs as basis for today's society for that matter). 

[cjjoyce1]

Finally not to split hairs but the USA were formed AFTER the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written so in the history of the USA there was no scenario were the people lived under a dictator rule. Using the colonial time as as example of what might happen in the future of this Federation is absurd (in fact using any 18th social constructs as basis for today's society for that matter). 

But that's exactly why our laws and ways of government were constructed and instituted in the manner they were.  And I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I'll say for the third time in this thread, do not think we are smarter or wiser simply because we are in the future.  In this very thread we are arguing about protecting the future by our actions today, yet you look at the past and say well, that doesn't apply today.  I think you're wrong about that.

[rrari1]

  BUT ... to use your examples, what if the 'majority' decided tomorrow that women should no longer be able to vote, or that it was acceptable to keep slaves? Would it be OK for the Congress to just pass a law, or for the President to sign an executive order reversing those         Exactly.

[KB]

Ok lets all just stop for a moment and look at this from another angle.

 

This thread was started as a defense of gun ownership in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings and it has been defended for the past 18 pages.

 

What I would like to know is this.......what will America do, what will the gun owners do in some kind of attempt to see it doesn't happen again?

 

Ken

[Guest zeleni kukuruz]

Ok lets all just stop for a moment and look at this from another angle.

This thread was started as a defense of gun ownership in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings and it has been defended for the past 18 pages.

What I would like to know is this.......what will America do, what will the gun owners do in some kind of attempt to see it doesn't happen again?

Ken

M8, are you still here in this topic? Hahahahaha

[freddy333]

The NRA has called for off-duty police in schools. While not a perfect solution, it would likely deter most, if not all, of the loonies who commit these types of crimes. Anyone who would attack a school so protected must, by definition, be psychotic. And, with the current laws in America dealing with psychotics (who have not yet killed or harmed anyone), the government does not appear to be motivated to do anything beyond trying to find more politically fashionable words to describe the insane.

[KB]

Freddy that's a joke surly....do you really believe the only way to fix this is NRA's lets turn this place into Beirut policy?

 

 

Ken

[JoeyB]

 

BUT ... to use your examples, what if the 'majority' decided tomorrow that women should no longer be able to vote, or that it was acceptable to keep slaves? Would it be OK for the Congress to just pass a law, or for the President to sign an executive order reversing those

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

I do not know much about law or US law, but is it not usually the case that a referendum is required for a change in a constitution, thus making it always democratic, and not just up to elected politicians?

[JoeyB]

Ok lets all just stop for a moment and look at this from another angle.

 

This thread was started as a defense of gun ownership in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings and it has been defended for the past 18 pages.

 

What I would like to know is this.......what will America do, what will the gun owners do in some kind of attempt to see it doesn't happen again?

 

Ken

At present it looks as though we will ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines. 

But as there can be no guarantee that a tragedy like this doesn't happen again in nations like Australia or the UK, or anywhere else all firearm ownership is banned, it would be no different here. 

[Nanuq]

What I would like to know is this.......what will America do, what will the gun owners do in some kind of attempt to see it doesn't happen again?

 

Well, we've passed 22,000 gun control laws and it hasn't helped much.

 

Maybe gun control isn't the solution?