Should all countries adopt a 2nd Amendment (Right To Bear Arms)?

[fantome profane]

Just a side note.... Do you think jellyfish are sad that there aren't any peanut butter fish

Scientists Create Peanut Butter Jellyfish

Finally, scientists create the first peanut butter jellyfish by feeding moon jellies America's favorite snack.

www.livescience.com

 

[Twilight Hue]

Where does the Constitution say they are to have their right to vote removed? Even incarcerated they are still citizens amd Constitutionally entitled to vote.

I dont want to see prisoners voting until their debt is payed back.

Voting is not a right BTW. Never was.

Does the Constitution Guarantee a Right to Vote? The Answer May Surprise You.

For decades, the courts and Congress have taken the lead in expanding the legal right to vote, but the founders never explicitly included it.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Copernicus]

I dont want to see prisoners voting until their debt is payed back.

Voting is not a right BTW. Never was.

Does the Constitution Guarantee a Right to Vote? The Answer May Surprise You.

For decades, the courts and Congress have taken the lead in expanding the legal right to vote, but the founders never explicitly included it.

www.nytimes.com

In theory, the Constitution does not enumerate all the rights that citizens have. It enumerates the rights that the government has. So the question is whether the government has the right to deprive a citizen of the right to vote. That's why courts have ruled that many of our rights are "implicit", which the NYT article gets. What it doesn't get is that citizens retain the rights that are not delegated to government. Hence, the 14th amendment becomes a much more powerful tool for expanding civil rights than perhaps originally existed in the wording of the original document. There is a lot of grey area in it in terms of what plenary powers are given to state governments, and that is where there is perhaps an argument that state laws have wiggle room to deprive people convicted of a crime from voting. It is already enshrined in the Constitution that certain classes of people cannot be deprived of their right to vote, but it isn't clear that someone convicted of a crime can be deprived by a government as part of their punishment. It doesn't seem to me that depriving criminals of that right would serve as much of a deterrent to the commission of future crimes, so I wonder what civic purpose is achieved by making that part of a punishment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In theory, the Constitution does not enumerate all the rights that citizens have. It enumerates the rights that the government has. So the question is whether the government has the right to deprive a citizen of the right to vote. That's why courts have ruled that many of our rights are "implicit", which the NYT article gets. What it doesn't get is that citizens retain the rights that are not delegated to government. Hence, the 14th amendment becomes a much more powerful tool for expanding civil rights than perhaps originally existed in the wording of the original document. There is a lot of grey area in it in terms of what plenary powers are given to state governments, and that is where there is perhaps an argument that state laws have wiggle room to deprive people convicted of a crime from voting. It is already enshrined in the Constitution that certain classes of people cannot be deprived of their right to vote, but it isn't clear that someone convicted of a crime can be deprived by a government as part of their punishment. It doesn't seem to me that depriving criminals of that right would serve as much of a deterrent to the commission of future crimes, so I wonder what civic purpose is achieved by making that part of a punishment.

If that is the case, then it should also apply to 2nd amendment rights as well.

Of course we see that rights, like privileges are not guaranteed as far as the government is concerned.

 

[McBell]

what is the difference between a right and a privilege?

 

[Copernicus]

If that is the case, then it should also apply to 2nd amendment rights as well.

Of course we see that rights, like privileges are not guaranteed as far as the government is concerned.

Public safety is one of those powers of government mentioned in the original document, so I don't think they had assault rifles fitted with high capacity in mind when they wrote the second amendment. They were thinking of a militia armed with flintlocks that took a little time to reload.

 

[Ponder This]

Amymore, please. Let the beardnecked Yeehawdist and dumbass militias go up against Uncle Sam. Just let it happen.
I won't shed a tear when the survivors realize how wrong they were to think their precious guns would lwt them fight the state.

I don't know what you think you are routing for. The U.S. isn't an example of a government that generally restricts the right of people to defend themselves nor is generally worried that people will stand up for themselves. Is it? Contrast this with a country such as China or Iran where it is much harder for people to stand up for themselves against a government that by and large doesn't allow its people to have guns with which to defend themselves.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Public safety is one of those powers of government mentioned in the original document, so I don't think they had assault rifles fitted with high capacity in mind when they wrote the second amendment. They were thinking of a militia armed with flintlocks that took a little time to reload.

The founding fathers seen advances made in weapons. I'm sure they were aware weapons will improve.

 

[We Never Know]

The founding fathers seen advances made in weapons. I'm sure they were aware weapons will improve.

Well... They did have cannons so I reckon we all can have cannons lol

 

[Valjean]

"Ran by?"

"most cities have Democratic mayors for the simple reason that urban voters, especially in large cities, tend to be Democrats"

With nine out of the top ten most unsafe cities being ran by democrats, you may have just found the problem

Simplistic thinking leads to misunderstandings and incorrect conclusions about complex systems and interactions. It may have been useful for hunter-gatherers, but today's multi-step political, environmental, and technical decisions require analysis of processes, not direct connections.

The Right points to Democratic mayors in troubled cities. The Left, to higher gunshot deaths and injuries in gun owning families. Direct cause-and-effect? Dubious.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[We Never Know]

"Ran by?"

Simplistic thinking leads to misunderstandings and incorrect conclusions about complex systems and interactions. It may have been useful for hunter-gatherers, but today's multi-step political, environmental, and technical decisions require analysis of processes, not direct connections.

The Right points to Democratic mayors in troubled cities. The Left, to higher gunshot deaths and injuries in gun owning families. Direct cause-and-effect? Dubious.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the same fallacy applies for saying its because they are in red states.

Regardless they are ran by democrat mayors. If the top 10 safest cities were ran by democrat mayors they would be gloating all over it saying its because they are ran by democrat mayors.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know what you think you are routing for. The U.S. isn't an example of a government that generally restricts the right of people to defend themselves nor is generally worried that people will stand up for themselves. Is it? Contrast this with a country such as China or Iran where it is much harder for people to stand up for themselves against a government that by and large doesn't allow its people to have guns with which to defend themselves.

Japan? Canada? New Zealand? England?
And don't forget some of those countries are more armed than people realize, like Canada.

 

[Valjean]

So what is the problem during the times when the Republicans are running the country?

In a nutshell: Government, media, legal, and educational capture, capture; in promotion of corporate interests.

Just off the top of my head:
Suppression of social and technical progress, and of research projects that might produce inconvenient results.
Defunding of social, safety, and protective programmes and agencies.
Replacement of directors and and researchers involved with said programmes and agencies with directors inimical to their missions.
Manipulation of the democratic process in furtherance of corporatism, banking, oligarchy, monopoly and the interests of the 1%.
Deregulation and "free trade" in support of same.
Reduction of the middle class, and of opportunity and social mobility, promoting a large, needy workforce..
Media capture and propaganda; taking advantage of legitimate fears and grievances, by blaming liberal policies, immigrants, religious and social minorities.

 

[Valjean]

Enabling (D)’s create cesspools of dysfunction and then run on fixing the problems but just create more of the same!

The problems were created by Republican policies, in support of corporate interests, and conveniently (and effectively) attributed to those opposing said policies.

The (D)’s are rioting, looting stores and killing each other!

They said the same thing about the civil rights movement, to promote increased suppression and segregation of black minorities.

"Democratic" and rights-based demos typically begin peacefully. If violence occurs it's usually induced by opposition attacks or overzealous policing.
The left tends to target symbols of oppression or grievances, not people. It's the right than more often resorts to violence, indiscriminate attacks, and violence against people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well... They did have cannons so I reckon we all can have cannons ...

My uncle had one on his desktop.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The problems were created by Republican policies, in support of corporate interests, and conveniently (and effectively) attributed to those opposing said policies.

Of which the leftys happily joined in on the profiteering.

 

[Valjean]

A right to vote after they paid back their debt to society.

There's no "debt." A crime is a crime. The law punishes -- for vengeance/retribution, and occasionally attempts some rehabilitation.
Unfortunately, it also suppresses opportunities for reïntegration, creating a large group of "second-class" citizens and an extremely high recidivism rate in the U.S.

Blocking the vote of a person affected by the policies to be voted on is unfair, and only continues the punishment -- after this "debt" has been paid.
It's rule without representation. It's the sort of government tyranny the righteous Right's always complaining about.

 

[Valjean]

A constitutional right is a constitutional right so will they get their right to have guns back or just the right to vote?

A constitutional right is what the courts decide it is.
Laws and rights are capricious, subject to the winds of politics.

 

[Valjean]

Of which the leftys happily joined in on the profiteering.

Not the lefties, the Democrats.
The Democrats are hardly left-wing, especially since they abandoned their traditional working class base for the (hopefully) more profitable technical class.

 

[Valjean]

I dont want to see prisoners voting until their debt is payed back.

Isn't this "debt" paid when the criminal's sentence ends?

Voting is not a right BTW. Never was.

Thank God! That sort of thing could enable the hoi-polloi. It might even result in Democracy!
We all know what that would lead to: demands for rights, equality and opportunity; demands for a piece of the aristocratic pie.