Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Karlis

The Global Gun Control Threat

326 posts in this topic

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operate and the powers of the branches of government, but they just forgot to add that the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed and that they are 'special' as opposed to the other amendments?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Find me anyone reputable that says the Bill of Rights cannot be altered or repealed by further amendments. Just type it in to google, 'can the US bill of rights be repealed', then click, read, and comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes later amendments can be repealed.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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've stated already, Utopia is not an option. I never claimed that everybody carrying would eliminate gun violence, and I understand full well that gun control advocates do not claim to stop all gun violence. I would just like to hear some specifics as to how the various gun control laws might be fine tuned to prevent such accidents.

I agree with you Babe Ruth. However, in almost or all the places where carry is legal, the crime rate has significanly dropped. The bad guys are going to think twice about who might be carrying and who is not. As for myself, I have extensive firearm training and I carry all the time legally. There was only one time in my 70 years that I have drawn my gun for protection and nobody got hurt.

Odie :gun:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You SERiOUSLY believe god gave you the right to bear arms?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To let future administrations know that these rights are set in stone. Unchangeable. This is basic 6th grade American history.

If that were true, they could have expressly said so in the constitution or in those amendments. Your 6th grade must have been a hoot.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Kudos on the effort, LG, but Preacherman won't bother trying to find any evidence to back up his position. He rarely if ever does. He's here, just as his handle indicates, to preach his willfully ignorant beliefs viewpoint as the truth regardless of any evidence to the contrary, or the lack of any evidence in support of his beliefs.

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos on the effort, LG, but Preacherman won't bother trying to find any evidence to back up his position. He rarely if ever does. He's here, just as his handle indicates, to preach his willfully ignorant beliefs viewpoint as the truth regardless of any evidence to the contrary, or the lack of any evidence in support of his beliefs.

Thanks Cz, I was beginning to suspect as much after the last few replies. It's not like there's anything wrong with being mistaken, I was 99% sure I was correct but still double-checked it. And I don't know what there is to preach even, this isn't like the usual positions I argue against where there is an interpretative element, this is just a plain fact.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does the word 'unalienable' mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does the word 'unalienable' mean?

You know, dictionary websites exist for just such occasions as this....

Just sayin'....

Cz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos on the effort, LG, but Preacherman won't bother trying to find any evidence to back up his position. He rarely if ever does. He's here, just as his handle indicates, to preach his willfully ignorant beliefs viewpoint as the truth regardless of any evidence to the contrary, or the lack of any evidence in support of his beliefs.

Cz

I rarely if ever even talk to you. Dont pretend you know me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were true, they could have expressly said so in the constitution or in those amendments.

But they went even further then that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they went even further then that.

And mysteriously left no evidence of it....

Seriously man, there's nothing wrong with being mistaken, everyone is sometimes. You don't have to acknowledge your error but I wouldn't think you want to continue to dig in your heels on an incorrect position here either. Don't believe people here, just look it up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Again, we are very close. Ultimately we must ask the question regarding your last sentence: "Is it even POSSIBLE to prevent dangerous devices (that are protected by the Constitution) out of the hands of the wrong people?"

We have been trying to do that for decades now to no avail, and if you include drugs too, for a century. To no avail.

Who thinks that so many of the various gun control measures have failed? Any disinterested observer who is willing to analyze the empirical evidence as gathered since those measures have been put into place. By any standard you choose to use, the vast majority of gun control laws have failed to stop gun violence. Even in cities like Chicago with very strict laws, a virtual prohibition on ownership or possession, shootings go on all the time. That cannot be denied.

And I hate to say it LG, because I know what you'll say, but it is beginning to appear that the style of story telling and 'press releases' relevant to Sandy Hook is very similar to the style of story telling related to certain other staged events. Yes, it's horrid, and I sure hope I'm wrong, but the similarities are downright spooky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Babe Ruth. However, in almost or all the places where carry is legal, the crime rate has significanly dropped. The bad guys are going to think twice about who might be carrying and who is not. As for myself, I have extensive firearm training and I carry all the time legally. There was only one time in my 70 years that I have drawn my gun for protection and nobody got hurt.

Odie :gun:

I agree 100%.

I do not carry, but have many friends that do. In certain situations, I draw some measure of comfort when I am in their presence. Same comfort I feel when in the presence of a cop.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely if ever even talk to you. Dont pretend you know me.

I

Can

Read...

The few times we have "talked" coupled with what I have observed of your behaviour here has given me enough insight to predict that, as usual, you will still not provide any kind of support for your position and you will persist with putting forward your willfully ignorant position no matter how much evidence is presented that proves you wrong...

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, so be it... won't be the first / last time, and at least I can admit it... but I've got a good feeling I'm not, though...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I

Can

Read...

The few times we have "talked" coupled with what I have observed of your behaviour here has given me enough insight to predict that, as usual, you will still not provide any kind of support for your position and you will persist with putting forward your willfully ignorant position no matter how much evidence is presented that proves you wrong...

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, so be it... won't be the first / last time, and at least I can admit it... but I've got a good feeling I'm not, though...

FWIW, I didn't see anything wrong with your original post and statement concerning him, you have plenty of evidence to back up your conclusions. It doesn't require that you 'know' him, that's silly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, we are very close. Ultimately we must ask the question regarding your last sentence: "Is it even POSSIBLE to prevent dangerous devices (that are protected by the Constitution) out of the hands of the wrong people?"

Your ultimate question is not specific enough. Yes, I do think it is possible to prevent some dangerous devices from getting into the hands of some wrong people; the only grades here are not A+ and F, it's not 100% effective or it's worthless. "Protected by the Constitution" doesn't mean anything to me, all amendments are subject to be interpreted more strictly or repealed altogether. Of course it's possible, but I don't think you'd be comfortable with what would be required. Do you think that a nationwide ban on ammunition and strict penalties on the inevitable black market that will spring up will do absolutely nothing over the course of decades to reduce gun deaths, compared to the free-for-all we have today? If not, then doesn't that indicate that legislation at least has the potential to reduce gun deaths? I realize something like this may have all kinds of other negative repercussions, but your point so far has largely been restricted to how worthless legislation is.

And I hate to say it LG, because I know what you'll say, but it is beginning to appear that the style of story telling and 'press releases' relevant to Sandy Hook is very similar to the style of story telling related to certain other staged events. Yes, it's horrid, and I sure hope I'm wrong, but the similarities are downright spooky.

'Similarities' and 'spooky' as defined by you and based on your purely subjective opinion, a foundation which, for a reason I will never understand, does not seem to give you pause. Of course when you are willing to come up with these odd, irrational rules that 'no evidence of a deception is evidence of a deception', it's no wonder how you arrive at these unsupported positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG

Your claim that "it's possible" does not make it so.

And yes, I was pretty certain before, and thanks for confirming that what's protected by the USC doesn't mean anything to you. That's rather the sticking point, besides your (commonly held) idea that passing some law, any law, whether it works or not law, will make you feel better. You and Diane Feinstein and many more.

Yeah, I get it. Let's do something, even if it has no effect, or even if it's wrong. Let's do something so that it will look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been trying to do that for decades now to no avail, and if you include drugs too, for a century.

You see, I disagree with this statement right here. No, the use of drugs hasn't been eliminated, that is true... but I do firmly believe that the laws regarding drugs have prevented many more people from using the more extreme drugs. It was done through both legislation as well as education.

I do firmly believe that if there was no laws concerning drugs, many more people would be using cocaine, heroin, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not carry, but have many friends that do. In certain situations, I draw some measure of comfort when I am in their presence. Same comfort I feel when in the presence of a cop.

weird. I have the exact opposite reaction. In fact, I have a cousin in law enforcement. Every time I went to his house I was uneasy knowing there was a gun in the house.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weird. I have the exact opposite reaction. In fact, I have a cousin in law enforcement. Every time I went to his house I was uneasy knowing there was a gun in the house.

I have three in the house and feel most comfortable at home.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.