Prayer shaming, stopping mass shootings

[Quetzal]

Question......
To those who would give up a constitutional right, in this case the 2nd Amendment
right to own guns, why should this be the singular right up for consideration?
Why not give up the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion? Instead of banning
guns, we could ban any religion seen as dangerous, especially the fundie versions.
Do we become safer by disarming ourselves with new laws the evildoers will ignore?

As the events of this latest shooting unfold, these questions become more compelling.

You are acting on the preconceived notion that just because some are in favor of more challenging gun legislation that it automatically equated to the banishment of all firearms. Not always the case.

 

[BSM1]

And? Still doesn't mean I'm wrong does it?

Yes. This is your opinion only; there is no legal or moral substance in your position. Others hold a diametrically opposite view than yours that negates your credibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

The wording of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that it is for arming a "well-armed militia". What is a militia? A force of trained and organized citizen-soldiers willing to supplement a nation's military forces. Are you saying that every single gun owner in the country is part of a militia? That they are all trained and organized to come together as one as a united force that can be called upon to support military needs? That is what a militia is, that is what the Constitution was speaking of in the 2nd Amendment. Since there was not the military force in place back then as it is now that was what they were trying to accomplish with that Amendment. Did the USSC re-interpret the Amendment to suit a purpose it wasn't originally intended for? Yes. Could it be fixed? Yes. Should it be...most assuredly. This insane idea that every citizen in this country has a "right" to bear arms is a large part of the reason that we have the gun issues in this country we have.

George Mason (June 14, 1788), from Wikiquote....
"Mr. Chairman — A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."

You call the right to bear arms "insane".
All this name calling & demonizing with labels & epithets doesn't serve civil discourse.
It's a matter of values & wants.
You prefer the security of expanding government's power in this manner.
I say the loss of this right is "dangerous" because it is to cede too much power to the state

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly. Who's to say these wackos in CA didn't pray for a successful shoot?

It's appearing more & more likely that their efforts were prayerful, albeit imprecatory.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are acting on the preconceived notion that just because some are in favor of more challenging gun legislation that it automatically equated to the banishment of all firearms. Not always the case.

No preconceptions.....I specifically addressed a defined group, ie, one which would ban them.
Even I have proposed some more restrictive legislation.
Of course, I wouldn't describe meself as a gun banner.
Some requirements I've advocated....
- Safe storage
- Training

 

[Quetzal]

No preconceptions.....I specifically addressed a defined group, ie, one which would ban them.

In which case, I agree with you. It is a stupid idea.

 

[Draka]

George Mason (June 14, 1788), from Wikiquote....
"Mr. Chairman — A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."

You call the right to bear arms "insane".
All this name calling & demonizing with labels & epithets doesn't serve civil discourse.
It's a matter of values & wants.
You prefer the security of expanding government's power in this manner.
I say the loss of this right is "dangerous" because it is to cede too much power to the state

That is one person's opinion right? When you look up the definition of militia, overwhelmingly it is defined as a group of organized, trained individuals to be called up in service. The basic citizenry of this nation are not organized, trained, nor even willing to be called up to service. I called the idea that all citizens have a "right" to bear arms insane. And it is. Not everyone is responsible enough to have a gun, trained enough, nor has the proper mentality to handle one and the repercussions of which. The 2nd Amendment also does not cover what kinds of guns are allowed either. Back then the types of guns we have now were probably unthinkable. There is no possible need for the average person to have an assault weapon. Not one. If people want to tout the 2nd Amendment can they at least do it with some reason? There are all kinds of guns that just should not be available at all to the populace. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about not restricting the kinds of guns people can have. Nor does it say that people shouldn't have any restrictions as to who qualifies to have a gun and who doesn't. We have far too much ease in this country to obtain a gun...legally at that. Some states have bans on certain kinds of firearms, but not all. If one can just drive across a state border to get a streamlined killing machine then what is the purpose? Certain firearms need banned federally. There should be programs not only in place, but heavily advertised, that encourage the surrendering of such firearms throughout the country.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is one person's opinion right?\

Considering who George Mason is, & his role in the writing of the Bill Of rights, I give his opinion considerable weight.
From Wikipedia.....

George Mason (sometimes referred to as George Mason IV) (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) was a Virginia planter, politician, and a delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of three men who refused to sign. His writings, including substantial portions of the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, and his Objections to this Constitution of Government (1787) in opposition to ratification of the constitution, have been a significant influence on political thought and events. The Virginia Declaration of Rights served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights, of which he has been deemed the father.

You say....

When you look up the definition of militia, overwhelmingly it is defined as a group of organized, trained individuals to be called up in service.

In law, particularly constitutional law, what matters is the intent behind it.
To apply a different definition from what was intended would be to subvert the law.
So again, I look to the Constitution's framers.
We citizens are the "militia", even if we have neither uniform nor arms.

Not everyone is responsible enough to have a gun, trained enough, nor has the proper mentality to handle one and the repercussions of which.

I agree.

The 2nd Amendment also does not cover what kinds of guns are allowed either. Back then the types of guns we have now were probably unthinkable. There is no possible need for the average person to have an assault weapon. Not one. If people want to tout the 2nd Amendment can they at least do it with some reason? There are all kinds of guns that just should not be available at all to the populace. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about not restricting the kinds of guns people can have.

While not addressed directly, we must again look to their intent.
It would not be so narrow as to restrict it to the technology of the day, since during their lifetimes they saw technological advancement in arms. So what they envisioned would be the function of arms, rather than detailed specifications thereof. And that function, as employed by the militia, was militarily capable small arms, eg, rifles, handguns.

Nor does it say that people shouldn't have any restrictions as to who qualifies to have a gun and who doesn't. We have far too much ease in this country to obtain a gun...legally at that. Some states have bans on certain kinds of firearms, but not all. If one can just drive across a state border to get a streamlined killing machine then what is the purpose? Certain firearms need banned federally. There should be programs not only in place, but heavily advertised, that encourage the surrendering of such firearms throughout the country.

All the constitutional arguing aside, it seems to boil down to values.
I prefer that we citizens be capably armed, & able to handle self defense, & even of the country.
You would cede more more responsibility & power over us to the government.
Even though the law is on my side, it becomes irrelevant in such discussions.[/QUOTE]

 

[Underhill]

I don't think people should be ashamed for expressing empty platitudes. For some people, trite banality is the most they can muster.

I agree in general. But if that is all a politician is offering, that is problematic.

 

[Underhill]

All the constitutional arguing aside, it seems to boil down to values.
I prefer that we citizens be capably armed, & able to handle self defense, & even of the country.
You would cede more more responsibility & power over us to the government.
Even though the law is on my side, it becomes irrelevant in such discussions.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies

I like guns too. But I worry that if the NRA keeps pushing this agenda of non cooperation, the end result will be much more sweeping than I'd like.

There is a lot of space between doing nothing and banning all guns.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Question......
To those who would give up a constitutional right, in this case the 2nd Amendment
right to own guns, why should this be the singular right up for consideration?

Just for the sake of argument, the other Rights don't revolve around thousands of needless deaths each year...

Why not give up the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion? Instead of banning
guns, we could ban any religion seen as dangerous, especially the fundie versions.
Do we become safer by disarming ourselves with new laws the evildoers will ignore?

Because we'd have to ban all religions, if we were being fair, and the demonstrably overwhelming number of Christians in this country wouldn't allow it. I'm sure they'd be all too happy banning other religions, but not theirs.

We already don't care too much about the 4th Amendment. Why do we hold the 2nd in such high regard?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Follow-up question...

If the problem is really mental illness, why aren't there more politicians on that side writing legislation to improve mental health care? Why aren't there massive rallies on that side, or constant news narratives on their media outlets aimed at promoting healthier individuals and ultimately stopping all these senseless murders? If mental health is really the issue, and if they really care for those who have been lost, why isn't more being done about it?

 

[BSM1]

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies

I like guns too. But I worry that if the NRA keeps pushing this agenda of non cooperation, the end result will be much more sweeping than I'd like.

There is a lot of space between doing nothing and banning all guns.

Do you believe we have 'done nothing' concerning gun laws?

 

[Revoltingest]

Just for the sake of argument, the other Rights don't revolve around thousands of needless deaths each year...

A red herring, eh?
Consider also that many thousands of lives are also defended with guns each year.
But I'm not addressing cost v benefits with this question.

Because we'd have to ban all religions, if we were being fair, and the demonstrably overwhelming number of Christians in this country wouldn't allow it. I'm sure they'd be all too happy banning other religions, but not theirs.

We could take a secular approach to limiting religion.
It could be made illegal to advocate any unjust violence.
Example:
It could be illegal to recite (as a statement of belief) any scripture which says non-believers should be killed.

No doubt, some major religions will be affected.
But they need only give up their calls to harm others.
Other beliefs may be freely expressed.

If we're to abridge constitutional rights, we should do the least possible with the greatest benefit.
As Brazil shows us, repressive gun control laws can allow a much greater gun death rate than ours.
Instead, limit the access of the mentally compromised to dangerous things, & limit the right to utter religious calls for violence.

We already don't care too much about the 4th Amendment. Why do we hold the 2nd in such high regard?

I advocate holding them all in high regard....except for the 18th.

 

[jonathan180iq]

A red herring, eh?
Consider also that many thousands of lives are also defended with guns each year.
But I'm not addressing cost v benefits with this question.

As I said, just for the sake of argument.

If we're to abridge constitutional rights, we should do the least possible with the greatest benefit.
As Brazil shows us, repressive gun control laws can allow a much greater gun death rate than ours.
Instead, limit the access of the mentally compromised to dangerous things, & limit the right to utter religious calls for violence.

Oh... Or how about we just ban all religious people from owning guns. Just flat, across the board. Only secularists can submit their application for gun ownership because they are less likely to be motivated by strong deitic mandates.

I advocate holding them all in high regard....except for the 18th.

Amen.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or how about we just ban all religious people from owning guns. Just flat, across the board. Only secularists can submit their application for gun ownership because they are less likely to be motivated by strong deitic mandates.

Because religion itself isn't inherently dangerous.
As I propose, let the law be secular so that there's no 1st Amendment violation.
We need only ban speech which calls for illegal acts.
That it occurs in worshipful speech & sacred scripture should be no exception.

 

[Draka]

The 18th Amendment is actually a good example here. Thanks Revoltingest. The 18th Amendment declared one thing, and when found it didn't work right the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th. Now, apparently an Amendment isn't written in stone. Times change. People learn. Amendments can not only be re-interpreted to fit the times, but obviously they can be repealed as well. There is nothing that says that the 2nd Amendment could not be repealed and/or adjusted by the drawing of a new Amendment. We've apparently done it before when cause was shown. Why not again? Times change. This world is not the world lived in when the 2nd was drafted. We are not waging war upon our own land. Our borders are protected in that respect unlike how there were over 200 years ago. We have now gotten to a time in our society that guns are providing more problems than they solve. An intelligent society grows, learns from its mistakes, and changes to fit the times. Other laws of our country have changed to fit the times. Laws are constantly being changed. Why not this one?

 

[Revoltingest]

The 18th Amendment is actually a good example here. Thanks Revoltingest. The 18th Amendment declared one thing, and when found it didn't work right the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th. Now, apparently an Amendment isn't written in stone. Times change. People learn. Amendments can not only be re-interpreted to fit the times, but obviously they can be repealed as well. There is nothing that says that the 2nd Amendment could not be repealed and/or adjusted by the drawing of a new Amendment. We've apparently done it before when cause was shown. Why not again? Times change. This world is not the world lived in when the 2nd was drafted. We are not waging war upon our own land. Our borders are protected in that respect unlike how there were over 200 years ago. We have now gotten to a time in our society that guns are providing more problems than they solve. An intelligent society grows, learns from its mistakes, and changes to fit the times. Other laws of our country have changed to fit the times. Laws are constantly being changed. Why not this one?

The 2nd Amendment has not been repealed.
Until that fateful day, it is law.

 

[Draka]

The 2nd Amendment has not been repealed.
Until that fateful day, it is law.

No, it hasn't. I'm asking why couldn't it be? Why couldn't a new Amendment be drafted which outlines better gun control methods that repeals the 2nd? We've done it before. It could be done again. As society changes so must our laws change to reflect that.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it hasn't. I'm asking why couldn't it be? Why couldn't a new Amendment be drafted which outlines better gun control methods that repeals the 2nd? We've done it before. It could be done again. As society changes so must our laws change to reflect that.

It could be repealed &/or replaced.
I don't trust our government to improve things this way though.
It can be done with the 2nd still in place.