Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Global Gun Control Threat

global gun control repeal second amendment

  • Please log in to reply
324 replies to this topic

#166    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 27 December 2012 - 01:42 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 27 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

The spirit of the second amendment is to stop government tyranny as a last resort. To define arms as a single shot weapon would destroy any chance to do that. Besides the second amendment cant be altered. It is out lined in the Bill of Rights. There is no political process to change the Bill of Rights.

This is not true, the United States Bill of Rights can be altered just like any other amendment in the US Constitution.  The 'Bill of Rights' is just a name for the first 10 amendments, they don't have any special status.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#167    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,126 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 27 December 2012 - 02:11 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 27 December 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

This is not true, the United States Bill of Rights can be altered just like any other amendment in the US Constitution.  The 'Bill of Rights' is just a name for the first 10 amendments, they don't have any special status.

Alright, show me the political process written into law that makes the Bill of Rights changeable. Before you waste your time, I'll just tell ya there is no such process. The Bill of Rights is not a constitutional amendment. It is a entity all on its own. The way the Bill of Rights is worded, the rights it meantions are not given to us by government, but according to it are given to us by our creator. Government hasnt given the rights, so government cant take them away. Only the creator himself can take them away. I dont expect we will be hearing from him on the matter any time soon.

Edited by preacherman76, 27 December 2012 - 02:24 PM.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#168    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,126 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 27 December 2012 - 02:15 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 27 December 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

That sounds defeatist.  I'm sure the combined efforts of the legal profession could find a way to clarify the definition of a word in an existing unalterable document without altering the document itself.  Look at the way the understanding of exactly whose rights they were has changed over the years.

Those rights were changed by violation of the highest law in the land. As the people slept though it. Luckly the people are wide awake when it comes to this issue right now. How can you understand the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed to mean anything other then what it directly says.

Its only defeatist to those who think they can exchange liberty for a false sence of security.

Edited by preacherman76, 27 December 2012 - 02:25 PM.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#169    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:30 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 27 December 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Alright, show me the political process written into law that makes the Bill of Rights changeable. Before you waste your time, I'll just tell ya there is no such process. The Bill of Rights is not a constitutional amendment. It is a entity all on its own. The way the Bill of Rights is worded, the rights it meantions are not given to us by government, but according to it are given to us by our creator. Government hasnt given the rights, so government cant take them away. Only the creator himself can take them away. I dont expect we will be hearing from him on the matter any time soon.

The Bill of Rights not a separate entity, it is the name given to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, these 10 amendments have no special status above any other amendment.  I guess the correctness of what you are saying depends on what you mean by 'changeable'.  Amendments are not removed from the Constitution or the wording changed, but later amendments have precedence; the 18th amendment prohibited alcohol and the 21st repealed it.  We can repeal the 2nd amendment also if we wanted to, it's no different than the 18th.

You are correct that these rights are not given to us by the government, but that does not mean they are inviolable.  The Bill of Rights consistently uses similar wording to, 'Congress shall pass no law... infringing on the right...', so for example our speech and religious practice and rights to assemble peacefully, which we all possess just by existing, cannot be outlawed.  But obviously, each of those examples actually is governed by some law that admittedly had to withstand more scrutiny by the judicial branch than others; it's illegal to defame or slander people or commit fraud through your speech, religious beliefs don't allow you to break other laws, etc.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#170    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,678 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:34 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 27 December 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

Well, of course more 'ineffective gun control laws' will be ineffective, by definition.  Perhaps we need more effective gun control laws?  When I refer to specific incidents I'm referring more to the fact that no matter what, there will always be some gun crimes, and there will always be mass killings, but that doesn't mean you can't do things to reduce overall gun crimes statistically.  If people really wanted it, I do think there could be rather drastic legislation put in place that over the course of decades would result in a decline in gun deaths.  Everyone understands full well why we don't allow flame throwers to be owned by civilians, I don't know what the biggie is if we draw that 'too dangerous' line at a different spot.  There's no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good or even the mediocre or even a tiny bit better;  a tiny bit better in relation to guns translates to saving someone's life usually.

I understand what you're saying, and cannot really disagree with the sentiment, but I just wonder about the practical aspects?

Considering the wide array of 'gun control measures' that have been implemented since the assassination of RFK, federal, state and local, and considering their significant failure, I just wonder what measure you might enact to achieve the decline in gun deaths?  As for me, I'm all in favor of mandatory training, because there are numerous accidents and killings that happen only through the utter ignorance and lack of respect for a dangerous weapon on the part of the operator.

Simply put, I am skeptical of the notion that some magic combination of words in the legislative process can bring the change we all desire.  The law is not nearly as effective as we would like to think.


#171    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,126 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:49 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 27 December 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

The Bill of Rights not a separate entity, it is the name given to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, these 10 amendments have no special status above any other amendment.  I guess the correctness of what you are saying depends on what you mean by 'changeable'.  Amendments are not removed from the Constitution or the wording changed, but later amendments have precedence; the 18th amendment prohibited alcohol and the 21st repealed it.  We can repeal the 2nd amendment also if we wanted to, it's no different than the 18th.

You are correct that these rights are not given to us by the government, but that does not mean they are inviolable.  The Bill of Rights consistently uses similar wording to, 'Congress shall pass no law... infringing on the right...', so for example our speech and religious practice and rights to assemble peacefully, which we all possess just by existing, cannot be outlawed.  But obviously, each of those examples actually is governed by some law that admittedly had to withstand more scrutiny by the judicial branch than others; it's illegal to defame or slander people or commit fraud through your speech, religious beliefs don't allow you to break other laws, etc.

Of course its a seperate entity. Nor is it just a name given to the first 10 amendments. There is more to it then a list of amendments. It was created by the founders cause they felt the constitution in and of its self couldnt properly protect them. Thats why they demanded a BOR. To let future administrations know that these rights are set in stone. Unchangeable. This is basic 6th grade American history.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#172    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 December 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

I understand what you're saying, and cannot really disagree with the sentiment, but I just wonder about the practical aspects?

Considering the wide array of 'gun control measures' that have been implemented since the assassination of RFK, federal, state and local, and considering their significant failure, I just wonder what measure you might enact to achieve the decline in gun deaths?  As for me, I'm all in favor of mandatory training, because there are numerous accidents and killings that happen only through the utter ignorance and lack of respect for a dangerous weapon on the part of the operator.

Simply put, I am skeptical of the notion that some magic combination of words in the legislative process can bring the change we all desire.  The law is not nearly as effective as we would like to think.

That I think is the bad presumption that is included in your line of argument here, that, "The law is not nearly as effective as we would like to think.".  I don't know who thinks that, I think most people understand the limited effectiveness of our laws.  I'm sure you can think of legislation that would be effective eventually in achieving a decline in gun deaths if that was the only issue and objective at hand:  outlaw all guns and ammunition, over time I think it's reasonable to assume that will eventually result in less gun deaths.  The trick is balancing that draconian measure with the current rights that people have and liberty and so on.  

Mandatory training is fine, but I don't think that helps prevent a Newtown-type event.  It appears that we are always going to have a subset of people who are mentally ill (not just children), or who are just plain malicious people.  Unfortunately in the US, we have so many weapons available that it's honestly no surprise that those violence-prone people are able to get their hands on them, existing laws or not.  I don't know how you prevent devices that can kill people with the push of a button from getting in the hands of these people short of putting into place far more strict and penalizing laws than we currently have.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#173    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 27 December 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Of course its a seperate entity. Nor is it just a name given to the first 10 amendments. There is more to it then a list of amendments. It was created by the founders cause they felt the constitution in and of its self couldnt properly protect them. Thats why they demanded a BOR. To let future administrations know that these rights are set in stone. Unchangeable. This is basic 6th grade American history.

Indeed, it is 6th grade American history, here's Article 5 of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Nothing in there that the Bill of Rights are any different than any other amendment. These rights are NOT 'set in stone' and that is by design, our founders were extremely intelligent.  It's not easy to amend the constitution, and it will likely never happen that any of the BOR will be outright repealed, but the Constitution itself lays out the rules by which amendments are made and doesn't set aside the first 10 as having special rules to my knowledge.  If you disagree, then quote me something from the Constitution that says the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed or altered by later Constitutional amendments.  

You do agree that later amendments after the BOR can be repealed, correct?  You just think that there is something special from an amendment standpoint about the BOR amendments?  If we decide in the future that guns must be banned, what do we do, abolish the government?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#174    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,126 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:15 PM

There is nothing there that meantions the BOR at all. Thats cause it cant be altered. Like Ive said, there is no political process to change the BOR, like there is to add amendments to the constitution. The states demanded the BOR, cause they felt the constitution didnt protect the first 10 properly. This is a no brainer. If the first 10 were like every other amendment, then there would be no need to have a BOR at all. Why do you think the Bill of Rights exists?

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#175    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,126 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:20 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 27 December 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Indeed, it is 6th grade American history, here's Article 5 of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Nothing in there that the Bill of Rights are any different than any other amendment. These rights are NOT 'set in stone' and that is by design, our founders were extremely intelligent.  It's not easy to amend the constitution, and it will likely never happen that any of the BOR will be outright repealed, but the Constitution itself lays out the rules by which amendments are made and doesn't set aside the first 10 as having special rules to my knowledge.  If you disagree, then quote me something from the Constitution that says the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed or altered by later Constitutional amendments.  

You do agree that later amendments after the BOR can be repealed, correct?  You just think that there is something special from an amendment standpoint about the BOR amendments?  If we decide in the future that guns must be banned, what do we do, abolish the government?

Yes later amendments can be repealed. And yes the BOR protects the first 10 to the point that if they were to try to lawfully ban guns, the entire foundation of government would have to be brought into question.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#176    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:34 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 27 December 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

There is nothing there that meantions the BOR at all. Thats cause it cant be altered. Like Ive said, there is no political process to change the BOR, like there is to add amendments to the constitution. The states demanded the BOR, cause they felt the constitution didnt protect the first 10 properly. This is a no brainer. If the first 10 were like every other amendment, then there would be no need to have a BOR at all. Why do you think the Bill of Rights exists?

If it's a no-brainer then you should be able to find something that supports your mistaken position here, no?  The Constitution lays out lots of specifics about how the government will operate and  the powers of the branches of government, but they just forgot to add that the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed and that they are 'special' as opposed to the other amendments?  That's your position?  If someone introduces an amendment that bans guns and it passes, what is going to happen?  The Supreme Court is going to find it 'unconstitutional' by referring to some undocumented text that isn't in the constitution?

Find me anyone reputable that says the Bill of Rights cannot be altered or repealed by further amendments.  Just type it in to google, 'can the US bill of rights be repealed', then click, read, and comprehend.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#177    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:38 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 27 December 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Yes later amendments can be repealed. And yes the BOR protects the first 10 to the point that if they were to try to lawfully ban guns, the entire foundation of government would have to be brought into question.

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments, it doesn't protect them, you just said that the Constitution doesn't contain the text you are looking for that sets them aside as 'special' amendments that are immune to repeal or alteration by later amendments.  No 'the entire foundation of the government' is not brought into question if you repeal something in the BOR, all of this is already addressed and handled by the existing Constitution.  If you get enough people together, you can ban guns, demand women wear burkas, put in place a government church, all kinds of nasty things.  Thankfully the founders made this difficult to do, but it can be done, and it specifies how exactly to do it.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#178    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,126 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:43 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 27 December 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments, it doesn't protect them, you just said that the Constitution doesn't contain the text you are looking for that sets them aside as 'special' amendments that are immune to repeal or alteration by later amendments.  No 'the entire foundation of the government' is not brought into question if you repeal something in the BOR, all of this is already addressed and handled by the existing Constitution.  If you get enough people together, you can ban guns, demand women wear burkas, put in place a government church, all kinds of nasty things.  Thankfully the founders made this difficult to do, but it can be done, and it specifies how exactly to do it.

The fact that the Bill of Rights exists at all sets those 10 amendments aside as special and immune to repeal. Again Ill ask, why does the Bill of Rights exist at all?

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#179    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,126 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to “create” rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.” – William J Brennan Jr.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#180    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 27 December 2012 - 05:03 PM

View Postpreacherman76, on 27 December 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

The fact that the Bill of Rights exists at all sets those 10 amendments aside as special and immune to repeal. Again Ill ask, why does the Bill of Rights exist at all?

The Bill of Rights, again, is the name given to the first 10 amendments, and these 10 amendments were part of the original constitution and protect certain fundamental rights from infringement by the govt, but not forever and ever, never to be changed.  If they were immune to repeal, leaving that fact out of the text of the constitution is inexplicable and totally inconsistent given the specifics and minutiae that are contained in the Constitution.  You might as well ask, why do amendments/the Constitution exist at all?  

I'm not blaming you on this, I'm a product of American education also and we actually didn't cover this until high school, you're fortunate if you had it in 6th.  But I really do think you are mistaken about this, and I can't find anything to the contrary after doing a couple searches to check myself.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users