Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 275

Thread: The Constitution and Guns

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5

    The Constitution and Guns

    To all those who cry about their second Amendment rights...
    When the Constitution was written Blacks were not considered people and women could not vote. And while these weren't Amendments that have now been changed... these aspects were a way of thinking. We have modernized since then (or so I'd like to think) not everything these people said, thought, and wrote should be considered "unchangeable".

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rfzarate View Post
    To all those who cry about their second Amendment rights...
    When the Constitution was written Blacks were not considered people and women could not vote. And while these weren't Amendments that have now been changed... these aspects were a way of thinking. We have modernized since then (or so I'd like to think) not everything these people said, thought, and wrote should be considered "unchangeable".
    Your comparison is inaccurate. History has shown that that thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were ratified for the purpose of requiring states to comply with the federal standard of treating blacks as equal under the law. This was in response to southern states enacting laws to prevent freed blacks from having access to constitutional protections one of which was the right to be armed just as whites were at the time.

    What was modernized through the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment was constitutional inclusion for minorities and slaves guaranteeing equal rights and protections under the law regardless of skin color or gender thus putting an end to the practice of enacting laws that said "no guns for blacks."
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by rfzarate View Post
    To all those who cry about their second Amendment rights...
    When the Constitution was written Blacks were not considered people and women could not vote. And while these weren't Amendments that have now been changed... these aspects were a way of thinking. We have modernized since then (or so I'd like to think) not everything these people said, thought, and wrote should be considered "unchangeable".
    Who is arguing that the 2nd amendment is unchangeable? You can change the 2nd amendment, it just requires a constitutional amendment to do so. Until then, you have to follow what the 2nd amendment says...which is what people are arguing. Further, no one is arguing that the 2nd amendment is a great idea because the founding fathers said it was a great idea. People are arguing that the founding fathers reasoning for the 2nd amendment is still applicable to today.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Who is arguing that the 2nd amendment is unchangeable? You can change the 2nd amendment, it just requires a constitutional amendment to do so. Until then, you have to follow what the 2nd amendment says...which is what people are arguing. Further, no one is arguing that the 2nd amendment is a great idea because the founding fathers said it was a great idea. People are arguing that the founding fathers reasoning for the 2nd amendment is still applicable to today.

    Actually most people who are Pro Gun are saying "you cant change the second Amendment" in such lovely phrases as "over my dead body" or "pry it from my cold dead hands". Maybe not all but alot are saying exactly that.
    Still applicable today...............Do you think 200 years from now? Cause I don't and I highly doubt that all those who wrote the constitution did either. The old Ball and one shot musket days are long gone. Also the British aren't going to invade any time soon either soooooooo don't know what is applicable seeing as those were the reasons they created the Amendment

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    Your comparison is inaccurate. History has shown that that thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were ratified for the purpose of requiring states to comply with the federal standard of treating blacks as equal under the law. This was in response to southern states enacting laws to prevent freed blacks from having access to constitutional protections one of which was the right to be armed just as whites were at the time.

    What was modernized through the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment was constitutional inclusion for minorities and slaves guaranteeing equal rights and protections under the law regardless of skin color or gender thus putting an end to the practice of enacting laws that said "no guns for blacks."
    Ok great they were ratified, so they are not infallible.....Still shows (even more so) That things change, new line of thinking has come about and people shouldn't be so dead set on keeping their Second Amendment just the way it is. What was applicable back then is no longer applicable now

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rfzarate View Post
    Actually most people who are Pro Gun are saying "you cant change the second Amendment" in such lovely phrases as "over my dead body" or "pry it from my cold dead hands". Maybe not all but alot are saying exactly that.
    Still applicable today...............Do you think 200 years from now? Cause I don't and I highly doubt that all those who wrote the constitution did either. The old Ball and one shot musket days are long gone. Also the British aren't going to invade any time soon either soooooooo don't know what is applicable seeing as those were the reasons they created the Amendment
    Do you have evidence that the founding fathers did not draft the constitution for the purpose of attempting to prevent a tyrannical government from establishing itself in America?

    The second amendment is not about repelling invading british soldiers. It is about resisting tyranny and its forces regardless of foreign or domestic status. This point has been argued before and continues to remain valid. It is of no relevance exclusively to hunting or sport anymore than the first amendment is relevant exclusively to watching movies. The fact that technology has changed means nothing and has no relevance in the matter. The forces that motivated the founding fathers to fear an overreaching government still exist today and must be monitored closely.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by rfzarate View Post
    Ok great they were ratified, so they are not infallible.....Still shows (even more so) That things change, new line of thinking has come about and people shouldn't be so dead set on keeping their Second Amendment just the way it is.
    The bill of rights was modified through ratification of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments for the purpose of protecting the rights of freed blacks who local governments were victimizing through laws aimed specifically at subjugated freed slaves. What you argue is the opposite of this by modifying the constitution not to expand the scope of rights protected but rather to reduce the number of rights protected. It is no different than proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal the fourth and fifth amendments to aid the government in the war on terror by ensuring they have unlimited access to even the most remote of locations where terrorist cells may hide crucial information.

    What was applicable back then is no longer applicable now
    Are you able to cite evidence to show that the general population does not possess a sufficient need to possess firearms for their own personal defense against various threats?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by rfzarate View Post
    Actually most people who are Pro Gun are saying "you cant change the second Amendment" in such lovely phrases as "over my dead body" or "pry it from my cold dead hands". Maybe not all but alot are saying exactly that.
    I've yet to hear it and I've yet to hear anyone wish to amend the 2nd amendment. Perhaps what you are hearing are people saying you can't change the 2nd amendment by legislative action other than the amendment process. I've heard that a lot. In any event, your argument doesn't logically follow if you are saying these people are semantically wrong. The 2nd amendment can be changed because we have an amendment process, not because the founding fathers were racist.

    Still applicable today...............Do you think 200 years from now? Cause I don't and I highly doubt that all those who wrote the constitution did either.
    Not only did they think 200 years from now, they thought 200 years prior (and more). The was the entire reason for allowing the constitution to be amended. Should something be not applicable or need changing you can do so. In the case of the 2nd amendment the reasoning they had for the 2nd amendment still applies to today so there is no need to change the amendment. The same could be said about the 1st amendment as well.

    The old Ball and one shot musket days are long gone. Also the British aren't going to invade any time soon either soooooooo don't know what is applicable seeing as those were the reasons they created the Amendment
    I've never seen and 2nd amendment documents refer to a one shot musket being reasoning for the amendment. I've also never seen a document stating the reason for the amendment is to defend against only a British invasion. Perhaps you should actually read the arguments of the time for having the amendment prior to suggesting they don't apply today.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by rfzarate View Post
    To all those who cry about their second Amendment rights...
    When the Constitution was written Blacks were not considered people and women could not vote. And while these weren't Amendments that have now been changed... these aspects were a way of thinking. We have modernized since then (or so I'd like to think) not everything these people said, thought, and wrote should be considered "unchangeable".
    Although it may not fit the narrative that people like Steeeeve and Xenamnes like to tell, I think the courts can and have effectively amended the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court said that dangerous and unusual weapons not in common use such as machine guns can be banned. In the Heller II case, a federal appeals court came to the conclusion that a ban on assault weapons was okay because such weapons were less useful for self defense. Future courts could come up with justifications for bans on other weapons.
    "Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Courtís overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as 'elevat[ing] above all other interests' 'the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.' Ante,at 63."
    -Justice Stevens on the Heller ruling

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Although it may not fit the narrative that people like Steeeeve and Xenamnes like to tell, I think the courts can and have effectively amended the Second Amendment.
    The constitutional process only allows for the amending of the constitution through congressional action. No other branch possesses the legal authority to do such.

    The Supreme Court said that dangerous and unusual weapons not in common use such as machine guns can be banned.
    Indeed they did not. Heller was a starting point rather than a finishing point. The broader issues of the second amendment will require significantly more court cases to be hashed out. What has been established that there is an individual right to bear arms for lawful purposes and not contingent upon service to the government as part of the armed forces.

    In the Heller II case, a federal appeals court came to the conclusion that a ban on assault weapons was okay because such weapons were less useful for self defense. Future courts could come up with justifications for bans on other weapons.
    The matter of Heller II is a lower court ruling and has no validity of the situation. Only the supreme court may set such precedent.

    Furthermore the Department of Homeland Security has stated that firearms such as the AR-15 equipped with thirty round magazines are suitable for the purpose of personal defense.

    https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=0

    This discredits the notion of such firearms being less than useful for self defense when compared to other firearms such as handguns.

    Furthermore the court in Heller II failed to explain how semi-automatic rifles and similar firearms are not useful for self defense. No explanation was given in their ruling.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    47
    I think we should remember that the guns the Founders were talking about when they wrote the Second Amendment were a lot less powerful than modern day guns. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee how much advancements in firearm technology would contribute to the crime rate.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterV View Post
    I think we should remember that the guns the Founders were talking about when they wrote the Second Amendment were a lot less powerful than modern day guns. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee how much advancements in firearm technology would contribute to the crime rate.
    We should also remember that this is irrelevant when talking about the reasons for having the second amendment.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterV View Post
    I think we should remember that the guns the Founders were talking about when they wrote the Second Amendment were a lot less powerful than modern day guns. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee how much advancements in firearm technology would contribute to the crime rate.
    In their day both smooth bore and rifled muskets were fully capable of penetrating body armor and killing the knight who was beneath it. Accuracy of the early rifles was measured in the hundreds of yards and could be used to effectively dispatch deer and bigger game for the purpose of food. Pistols chambered in seventy five caliber were in existence and use during the time of the founding fathers.

    It would be foolish to believe the founding fathers expecting technology to remain stagnate and never evolve and thus make constitutional protections contingent upon this notion. It has been explained multiple times how you are wrong and there is no reason for you to continue repeating the same mantra over and over and expect a different response. Your argument is irrelevant and non-conductive to an open and honest debate regarding facts.

    The founding fathers drafted the second amendment for the purpose of providing the people with an effective tool to fight tyranny. At the time muskets were suitable. As the times and technology change concepts of acceptable standards must evolve and grow. Muskets are useless technology for the purpose of resisting tyranny or foreign invaders in today's age. If they were suitable the government would still be using them rather than modern designs.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I've yet to hear it and I've yet to hear anyone wish to amend the 2nd amendment. Perhaps what you are hearing are people saying you can't change the 2nd amendment by legislative action other than the amendment process. I've heard that a lot. In any event, your argument doesn't logically follow if you are saying these people are semantically wrong. The 2nd amendment can be changed because we have an amendment process, not because the founding fathers were racist.

    Not only did they think 200 years from now, they thought 200 years prior (and more). The was the entire reason for allowing the constitution to be amended. Should something be not applicable or need changing you can do so. In the case of the 2nd amendment the reasoning they had for the 2nd amendment still applies to today so there is no need to change the amendment. The same could be said about the 1st amendment as well.
    I've never seen and 2nd amendment documents refer to a one shot musket being reasoning for the amendment. I've also never seen a document stating the reason for the amendment is to defend against only a British invasion. Perhaps you should actually read the arguments of the time for having the amendment prior to suggesting they don't apply today.
    K, well start back at the aftermath of Columbine and watch the NRA Rally that happened about a week after starring Charelston Heston (Big NRA/Actor in case you don't know he is) Start his speech in the grieving town with one of those lovely phrases..then just continue watching NRA rallies from then forward. I never said "they were racist" but on that note um Benamin Franklin did have slaves....

    Well there is really now way of telling what they were thinking from my side I say they weren't thinking 200 years ahead and you say they were..but I have yet to see any documentation leaning either way so it was more "food for thought"..

    And The ball and musket was the "weapon" the "bearing of arms" they had at the time I highly doubt Mac 10's and handguns and so on were what they had in mind. By the way we did have a time in our history when just about everyone had a handgun...we refer to that time peorid as the wild west..........

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    Do you have evidence that the founding fathers did not draft the constitution for the purpose of attempting to prevent a tyrannical government from establishing itself in America?

    The second amendment is not about repelling invading british soldiers. It is about resisting tyranny and its forces regardless of foreign or domestic status. This point has been argued before and continues to remain valid. It is of no relevance exclusively to hunting or sport anymore than the first amendment is relevant exclusively to watching movies. The fact that technology has changed means nothing and has no relevance in the matter. The forces that motivated the founding fathers to fear an overreaching government still exist today and must be monitored closely.
    No I don't but the probability that that paranoid thinking is anything other than paranoid.....if that's the belief then everyone should be armed. so arm your kids cause you never know when dad might come home and go crazy!!! Also arm every employee at every job cause you never know when the boss is gonna come in and do something that violates your rights or threatens your safety!!!

    They are these things called ratings developed by the MPAA that has been integrated since the beginning of film to offer as "guideline" and also restrict based on certain criteria. So the change of technology has come with rules and guidelines. So should be the same with guns

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •