Dont be so blind.
In what sense am I being blind? That's saying *1 dead, 20 dead, what's the difference?* It's an appalling thing to say.
Dont be so blind.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
I would just like to say that I hate the fact that gun control seems to be at the forefront of the issues here.
It seems like every time something like this happens the culprit is the same person. A young, intelligent, socially awkward and distant person with some signs of mental issues.
How we handle mental health should be the issue. I have a cousin with mania. Needless to say when he goes off on his tangents, he goes OFF. Threats to kill his father, beating the shit out of people, and basically inhuman strength when he is on a rage. It took like five cops during one incident to bring him down. Unfortunately since he is an adult he gets to decide how his condition is handled which means he is out on his own doing as he pleases. We think with him it's not a matter of if but more a matter of what and when and it is really out of our control. Our whole family pretty much fears him but there's nothing we can do to keep him in the treatment he needs.
Addressing the mental health of our citizens and how we handle those with issues is what I think can be the most preventative action we can take against these kinds of things.
Certainly one of the smarter points in this debate and it's been put out there a few times but I haven't heard a single 'nut and bolts' recommendation on how you address this...?
As is your case, how do you get help for somebody who doesn't want it? A lot of talk about the 'assault on liberty' that gun laws would be... what about involuntarily committing everyone who exhibits signs of mental disease?![]()
It's not a right, it's a privilege. That is notable simply by the fact that to carry certain weapons requires certain paperwork, licensing, etc. and you can't legally buy ANYTHING you want either. It is just like driving, which is also a privilege, not a right. Yet I don't see people like you yelling in the street that someone is being denied their license to drive either (well AARP might be).
![]()
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789, formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States. While twelve amendments were proposed by Congress, only ten were originally ratified by the states. Of the remaining two, one was adopted 203 years later as the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the other technically remains pending before the states.
Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men, excluding American Indians, people considered to be "black" (now described as African Americans), and women. These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights' text, but were well understood and applied.
The Bill of Rights plays a key role in American law and government, and remains a vital symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the first fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
It’s my constitutional right.
“There’s nothing we can do! It’s in the Constitution.” It’s a shrewd move, because it places blame for the American gun problem on the founders, instead of on the people furthering the problem now. But that’s a broken argument too.
That something is (possibly) enshrined in the Constitution does not mean it is invincible to change. Let’s not forget that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, eh? We’re still allowed to argue about that.
The Constitution is good at stuff like this. We’ve amended the thing 27 times, to fix the issues our founding fathers, in all their 18th-century wisdom, fucked up beyond comprehension. Women couldn’t vote, black people were 3/5ths of a person (and couldn’t vote), presidents could be reelected in perpetuity. Hell, the path of presidential succession wasn’t codified until 1965, after we needed it a bunch of times. (Mostly after angry people killed our presidents… with guns.)
And when an amendment like the 18th comes along and takes away our beer, we have the power to bring along an amendment like the 21st, which gives it back. Because one thing the Constitution does get right is the opening line: “We, the People.” Like Charles Pierce wrote Friday, our commitment to each other is the driving force behind our self-government, and when self-government stands by and watches Americans shoot each other in the face, we have failed each other.
So no, the constitutional argument against gun control is not good enough. We have a commitment to society that is above blind faith in 220-year-old dogma. We took away slavery. We can regulate guns. Providing for the common defense doesn’t only apply to drone-striking terrorists, and if we can repeal the 18th Amendment, we, the people, can certainly temper the bloody effects of the Second.
Some people will die, if their guns are taken away and they can’t defend themselves. But how many people would be saved? If taking away guns from the public makes gun deaths go down overall — and it would — how would someone argue against it? That it violates an American ideal, a notion that people should have that line of personal defense? It’s not good enough, if people are dying, senselessly, every day, to preserve that right. If “making sure less people die” is not preserving the general welfare, that section of the Preamble means nothing.
Whether the Constitution is set in stone or not is irrelevant. If it currently says it's a right, then that's what it is: A right. Should its not being set in stone ever be used to change it so that it doesn't say it's a right or explicitly says it isn't one, then it won't be one. However, that hasn't happened yet, and we can't use the possibility that it might happen to say that it isn't a right.
Shouldn't automatic weapons also be available then?
Also, since it's a right, should there really be any paperwork at all involved in owning one?
The constitution isn't the bible, you can change the story if you want to.
I'm not sure how you'd jump to that conclusion. Given the above-mentioned vagueness of the phrasing used in the Constitution, we don't have any set-in-stone idea of what specific "arms" we have the right to bear, just that we have the right to bear them, whatever it's decided they are. People can (and do) argue that it means we can bear anything we want, including automatic weapons, flame throwers, and other dastardly goodies. Other can (and do) argue that the arms we have the right to bear should be limited to those that actually have a utilitarian purpose, such as hunting rifles and target-shooting pistols.
Until further amendments appear that strictly delineate what exactly we have the right to bear, though, people will continue to argue about it. What can't be argued is that we have a right to bear something, though I still don't see the logical bridge between "if you think you have the right to bear arms, then you must therefore think you have the right to bear automatic weapons" you seem to be seeing.
Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...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.
I believe that was in response to the picture you posted above.
His point is valid and you're being deliberately obtuse.
To those arguing that, just because it's in the Consitution, it should remain unaltered or remain interpreted solely in the context it was originally written, maybe we've forgotten these little gems from our past:
The firearms are already in circulation, changing the laws now won't do anything but affect law-abiding citizens. We need to bring more reform to mental health care.
In the end, I still believe we need to work on mental health issues and fix the cause of these tragedies instead of attacking the tools used to carry them out....taking those away still leaves the crazy.
As for having vs. not having...Colorado theater, Columbine, Newtown, Malls, etc....all = gun-free zone (per posting on signs)....seems to me the badguys here are going places where they believe no one will be able to protect themselves.
So then you oppose any restrictions on who can own a gun, what kind of guns they're allowed to own and where they're allowed to bring them?
*snip*
Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do you suppose we address the mental health issue, in an effective, measurable way?
I don't see it that way....knowing in advance that there's reduced likelihood of someone being in the area to protect themselves b/c the follow the law allows pussies like the theater shooter to get in that position in the 1st place. The knowledge of citizens following the laws/signs allows them to capitalize on the situationAlso, with the exception of the Colorado theater, all the shooters you mentioned either killed themselves or put themselves in a "stand off" position, knowing they were going to be killed. That method doesn't lead me to believe the fear of anyone else being armed bothered them much.![]()