Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Candlelight, May 1, 2013.
That point sums it up pretty much.
Which is why kids have the same Second Amendment rights as everyone else. Wouldn't want to make an exception out of them. ^_^
The one thing that still bugs me about this?!?
The fact that a company sells fully-functional minitiare rifles for little kids and that parents buy them for their kids...
As a parent you don't want your little kids to play with mom's kitchen knives or dad's power-tools because they are dangerous, but a fully-functional gun is okay?!?
That's just fucked up...
I'm still trying to figure out how it's legal to market a functional-firearm to children, yet you can't sell a toy-gun without it being a godawful looking mess or orange capped.
Hm, that too...
So would the company be breaking laws?!?
But in theory like any Law the second Ammendment can be repealed. I'll differ to our American cousins for the exact means, but isn't it something like two thirds of both houses have to pass the motion and then for the President to sign it?
Two-thirds of both houses have to propose an amendment, but the President isn't involved. After an amendment is proposed, three-fourths of the states have to ratify it (38 of 50). A handful of Northeastern states might ratify it (New York, Massachusetts, etc), but that's as far as it would get. The vast majority of states approved concealed carry laws in the last couple of decades, and there's probably more than twelve that recently declared all new federal firearms laws to be null and void in their state, some even tossing in prison time for anyone who tried to enforce them. Just this week a formal recall process started for Colorado legislators who passed their new gun laws restricting magazine capacity, though I doubt they can collect enough signatures given the short time limit.
And a large number of states also have an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment in their state constitutions, sometimes a more detailed and elaborate version. In my state it's unconstitutional to question the constitutionality of the right to keep and bear arms, which is kind of odd.
I would also add that the 2nd amendment is not just another law or even just another Constitutional Amendment. It is one of the first ten amendments, also known as The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison and specifically added to the Constitution to prevent tyranny by the central government.
^So in essence in your state you have the right of free speach except when it comes to guns, which as you say is odd.
Yep. They sloppily phrased it as "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, in defence of themselves and of their state, shall not be questioned."
I guess they thought it sounded fancier that way, but by the letter of the law it would have to be appended or repealed without much direct discussion. Perhaps it's like yelling "gun ban!" in a crowded conventional hall hosting a gun show. Public disorder, stampedes, cash registers catching fire from all the extra sales. Total madness.
300 years ago. Times change. As if any of you were to prevent tyranny by the central government today with its modern military machinery.
When it comes to weapons, most of yo Americans throw your brain out of the window, seriously.
So if it so sacrosanct why is there a mechanism in place to ammend/repeal it? Surely putting in a means to ammend/rpeal something means that it is a living breathing document so to speak. That is able to adapt to suit the current era.
As has already been mentioned in this post several times (with links) the majority of Americans are in favour of some sort of gun control. Yet it appears as if the minority who favour little to no gun control are over ruling the majority. That's not how a democracy works.
And there are also common sense safety limits and restrictions on speech and assembly in order to minimize the chances for public injury and harm. "Shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theater?" Treason? Libelous speech? Inciting violence or murder?
I've no issue with the Second Amendment. I've an issue with people who want to interpret it in the most literal, 18th century terminology possible and demand that we can't view it any but the most fundamentalist terms while they nitpick elements that exist elsewhere in the Constitution.
And now at least 12 people have been shot during a Mothers Day parade in New Orleans. Luckily there have been no deaths this time around.
That "minority" is represented by the NRA, and that's a powerful lobby. I think about 5 million members.
A sobering reminder... sad how we homosapiens have such a long way to go before we achieve true social harmony.
Remind me again what's the population of the USA circa 300m so that 5m represents about 1.7% of the population. We have a word for that it's minority. Really the NRA doesn't help it's cause by objecting to a m ajority of the proposals put forward to help curb gun violence.
And now another shooting in New Orleans thankfully with no fatalities. In some countries incidents like that would have the politicans and people saying what can we do to minimise an event such as this from occuring again. In the US it seems as if certain people are saying this happens and there is nothing we can do to prevent it from occuring. Sure we might not know all the underlying issues that cause the perpatrator to do what he did in New Orleans they will of course come out in the fullness of time.
And that would be a first, because there is no such thing in nature.
Think of it as natural selection then.
The sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to equip a well-regulated militia (which is no longer necessary, now that we have things like the police and the military, which did not exist when the Constitution was written). It was meant to strengthen the government, not weaken or destroy it.
Separate names with a comma.