Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Revoltingest]

Btw, did anyone notice Bernie Sanders position on gun control ?

Alas, Bernie has recently been "evolving" in the direction of more government control.

 

[Thanda]

Yes.

In that case you should be reminded we are debating what should be and not what is or will be. And in that light appeals to authority are of no value to the discussion

 

[RRex]

In that case you should be reminded we are debating what should be and not what is or will be. And in that light appeals to authority are of no value to the discussion

Are you saying that pointing out facts regarding what is discussed is irrelevant?

That is illogical.

 

[Thanda]

Are you saying that pointing out facts regarding what is discussed is irrelevant?

That is illogical.

It is irrelevant in a discussion about what rights the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to tell us how an institution which may some day change its mind has interpreted it. It adds nothing to the discussion in my view. The SCOTUS has changed its mind to often for it to be of any relevance to a discussion of what should be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's just say that we may each disagree with the USSC at times, but what they say will be the law of the land.
I do hate it though when they void our rights by fiat, eg, the right to jury trial when gov calls the offense "petty", ie, less than a year in jail.
Justices who voted for that should be smothered by me kilt.....before laundry day (every Feb 29).

 

[RRex]

Thanda,

I see you are from South Africa.

As a Criminal Justice graduate in the United States, do you think it is possible I might know a little more about United States law than you do?

RRex.

 

[Revoltingest]

And don't forget me.....
I have criminal justice expertise too, having never been convicted.

 

[RRex]

It is irrelevant in a discussion about what rights the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to tell us how an institution which may some day change its mind has interpreted it. It adds nothing to the discussion in my view. The SCOTUS has changed its mind to often for it to be of any relevance to a discussion of what should be.

The Judicial Branch was deliberately designed with flexibility in mind.

Why, you may ask?

To account for the maturation of the governmental system in place and the country itself.

 

[Thanda]

Thanda,

I see you are from South Africa.

As a Criminal Justice graduate in the United States, do you think it is possible I might know a little more about United States law than you do

RRex.

You may. But this is not a question of American law. It is a question of logic. We all know what the law currently is in America - that is not up for debate. What is up for debate is what the law should be - and that is not the sole forte of lawyers.

 

[RRex]

You may. But this is not a question of American law. It is a question of logic. We all know what the law currently is in America - that is not up for debate. What is up for debate is what the law should be - and that is not the sole forte of lawyers.

You are debating the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land in the United States of America.

Your protestations that this is not a matter of law are illogical.

 

[Jake1001]

Alas, Bernie has recently been "evolving" in the direction of more government control.

And his position will continue to evolve. Bernie comes from a small, rural, New England state where the folks like their guns. I think I heard he lost an election over this issue, I will have to check that.

As he rises in the national debate he has to deal with the national phenomenon of mentally ill and terrorists having automatic weapons. Clearly, new gun control measures are needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

And his position will continue to evolve. Bernie comes from a small, rural, New England state where the folks like their guns. I think I heard he lost an election over this issue, I will have to check that.

As he rises in the national debate he has to deal with the national phenomenon of mentally ill and terrorists having automatic weapons. Clearly, new gun control measures are needed.

Alas, I don't like his approach to which measures are best.
But who knows what he believes or would actually do in office.
He says one thing to his home state base.
He says another to those who could make him the Dem nominee for prez.
And in the general election, he'd best find a position in between.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And his position will continue to evolve. Bernie comes from a small, rural, New England state where the folks like their guns. I think I heard he lost an election over this issue, I will have to check that.

Sanders is actually pretty pro-Second, and Vermont, being rural, is actually pretty gun friendly. Sanders is the only candidate I've heard so far acknowledge there is a difference between how rural people view and use guns and how city people view and use guns.

 

[Jake1001]

Sanders is actually pretty pro-Second, and Vermont, being rural, is actually pretty gun friendly. Sanders is the only candidate I've heard so far acknowledge there is a difference between how rural people view and use guns and how city people view and use guns.

I don't think any of the candidates are against the 2nd. The real debate is over the nature of gun control. So this thread is really irrelevant. Perhaps we should start a new one to discuss Gun Control !

 

[metis]

So long as we agree no right is absolute then I agree with you, the right to bear arms is also not absolute. That said there must be substantial reason why one would want to deny a right. And the right should only be denied under those substantial reasons.

What is the "it" in your sentence "It does not state nor even imply"?

"It" refers to the actual wording of the 2nd. The reference to the militia is clear, whereas the reference to the "people" is not that clear because it begs the question "Which people?", and the SCOTUS has never interpreted that is being all people.

 

[metis]

How does this apply to the case when the police become the criminals ? Nazi Germany is one example. The British in the time of the colonies is another. Assad is Syria is a recent example. In these cases, it seems to me, that a persecuted individual must either leave the country or become part of an armed militia.

The SCOTUS interpretation is consistent with allowing individuals to arm themselves as part of a militia. The recent development of mentally ill and more recently terrorists being armed with automatic weapons requires new gun control actions.

It really does not explicitly apply to police acting as criminals, but it definitely applied to the need for states to protect themselves and their constituents.

As far as the latter paragraph is concerned, we've pretty much always had gun control of one type or another, and we didn't go historically towards either extreme of allowing all weapons or no weapons.

 

[aoji]

I don't think any of the candidates are against the 2nd. The real debate is over the nature of gun control.

?

I think you need to start doing a lot of Googling...

Not that it will really matter because we all have already made up our minds so no matter what we read if it goes counter to our beliefs we will readily dismiss it; both sides of the arguments will generate rhetoric. So whom is one to believe?

Wouldn't 100% Gun Control translate to the nullification of the 2nd Amendment? Not that that will stop gun crimes, mind you. It hasn't stopped in Mexico or Britain, just to name two. Been to NYC lately? What makes it so different from marauding paramilitary in Honduras or the paramilitary police in Israel, or in many civilized societies?

If the problem doesn't exist in Switzerland, is it because they are a homogenized society?, say all whites?, no poor?, well educated? they don't have drug problems? Or is it that they don't allow their politicians to be bribed?

 

[esmith]

Just a couple of very simple question.
Why does anyone want to repeal the Second Amendment?
What would be accomplished by the repeal of the Second Amendment?

 

[RRex]

A point of fact -

The majority of gun control laws cover gun sales to those who are legally eligible to purchase them.

If we are going to write more laws regarding gun control they should be targeted at the illegal gun trade permeating the troubled areas of inner cities.

This is the heart of the problem. Apparently free and uninhibited access to firearms by people who in no way, shape or form are eligible to possess firearms.

 

[Jake1001]

?

I think you need to start doing a lot of Googling...

Not that it will really matter because we all have already made up our minds so no matter what we read if it goes counter to our beliefs we will readily dismiss it; both sides of the arguments will generate rhetoric. So whom is one to believe? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/hillary-clinton-s-assault-on-the-second-amendment Is there any substance, any validity, any truth, to that article? Even a smidgen? What about the voting record?

Wouldn't 100% Gun Control translate to the nullification of the 2nd Amendment? Not that that will stop gun crimes, mind you. It hasn't stopped in Mexico or Britain, just to name two. Been to NYC lately? What makes it so different from marauding paramilitary in Honduras or the paramilitary police in Israel, or in many civilized societies?

If the problem doesn't exist in Switzerland, is it because they are a homogenized society?, say all whites?, no poor?, well educated? Do they have the same drug problems we do?

This is not a reputable source. I have not seen a reputable source that says Hillary wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Please post it if there is one.