Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe 2A has been written by men and can just as easily be deleted by men. It's no biggie.
"The right to bear arms."
Who grants rights? It's us humans. We humans have decided to grant and withhold various rights as we see fit and according to the ever-shifting winds of culture.
We are a constitutional monarchy? Only males can vote? Slavery is okay?
A few decades and centuries later and all of a sudden you no longer live in a constitutional monarchy, women can vote and slavery is outlawed.
Hundreds of nations, hundreds of constitutions, granting and withholding rights.
If some guys can write an US Constitution that considers "bearing arms" an essential human right, and other guys in other countries can write other constitutions that do not consider "bearing arms" an essential human right, then some guys in the US can amend the US Constitution to make it so "bearing arms" is not an essential human right.
My point is:
Rewriting a constitution, declaring/conjuring/granting/withholding/nullifying human rights, that's actually not that big of a deal. Mankind is doing that all the time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MaryMagdaline
(7,918 posts)
MichMary
(1,714 posts)Any amendment can be repealed, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st.
Do you know what the procedure for amending the Constitution entails?
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
Repealing the 2nd Amendment would require way more votes than we will ever have, in both Congress and in the states. So, yes it is a very big deal, and it won't happen.
Work toward electing people who will impose reasonable, common sense limits.
Abnredleg
(1,002 posts)There are two types of rights - natural and legal.
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
The rights listed in our Constitution are natural rights. The Bill of Rights does not create any rights but merely places protection against government actions on already existing rights.
As stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
DetlefK
(16,489 posts)Natural rights are a postulated axiom! They are not connected to or derived from anything! Your own quote states as much: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
It is humans who claim that there are rights that go beyond the realm of humans.
That's like saying "The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists because this piece of paper written by a human says that it exists."
Abnredleg
(1,002 posts)So much of of what we refer to as human rights are based on unalienable rights:
“ ...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ”
— Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
To deny their existence is to undermine the foundation of what we refer to as "human rights".
I understand the point you are making - I'm just arguing that to deny the existence of inalienable rights will create great damage to our efforts to bring justice to the world because we will not be able to point to any greater purpose.
DetlefK
(16,489 posts)First human rights didn't exist and then, OH MIRACLE, they suddenly did.
We humans invent rights, we declare them, and we defend them. And if we can invent a right, then we can nullify a right. Especially if only some people even see that right as a right.
Europe does not have a right to bear arms. And they are doing great.
(Switzerland is gun-country, but they don't have as much gun-violence as the US, because they do have a well-regulated militia and a totally different attitude when it comes to using guns.)
Straw Man
(6,786 posts)And those are absolutely the only differences between Switzerland and the US, right?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Written and rewritten by the very same humans that wrote the slave laws...not a biggie in the actual changing if society as a whole has moved on from bad laws.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the concept of natural rights is the foundation of the Enlightenment.
Your post explains why those don't like the second aren't exactly big fans of the first or fifth either.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)only .223% of the time.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)instead of logical fallacies, personal attacks, fake statistics,
I would say gunners are right 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the time.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)lead with?
You are nothing if not entertaining.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Every "anti-gunner" I have encountered uses the exact same fallacious arguments, fake statistics, and disinformation.
Therefore, it is not a broad brush. Those are the only arguments you have.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Start with a logical fallacy end with a logical fallacy and in between accuse some mythical opponent of using logical fallacies.
Shit ge, ya don't even have the imagination to mix up yer fallacies!
Beside that yer citen arguments that nobody's made.
Yer nothin if not entertainin.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Consider Newton's Laws of Motion:
Second law: In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant – see below.)
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
The first law is, without sufficient reflection, a degenerate instance of the second law where, when F (force) is 0, a (acceleration) is also 0. In reality the first law gives a means for determining when the observer is "In an inertial frame of reference".
A logical application of laws flows from the government's foundational axioms.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Just because it was stuck in the Bill of Rights by people over 230 years ago (people who were thinking of something entirely different) doesn't make it a God given right to all humans.
God doesn't cherish gun ownership like he cherishes human dignity.
Abnredleg
(1,002 posts)Scalia stated in Heller that the Right to Bear Arms can be restricted, and the SC has upheld Assault Weapons Bans, so there is no unalienable right to own an AR-15. The 2nd is not preventing anyone from banning AR-15's - the problem is a political and cultural one.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)To which I call bullshit. It does not protect human dignity or democracy the way, for example, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 14th and 15th Amendments do.
Abnredleg
(1,002 posts)is a natural, inalienable right, which is what Heller says. The government can say that I can't have an AR-15 to defend myself in my home, but it can't deny me the right under the 2nd Amendment to have any weapon. Notice how limited the right is - self defense in the home. Weapons can be tightly regulated under the 2nd Amendment, the NRA not withstanding.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)which I'm not sure it is, we give the NRA that argument that it is a right that cannot be abridged in any way. I think it would be beneficial to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Then we can talk about gun safety and reasonable regulations, rather than in terms of "inalienable rights."
Abnredleg
(1,002 posts)The rights listed in the Constitution have always been considered inalienable and you can't just wave that away.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)I don't accept gun ownership as an inalienable right.
melm00se
(5,075 posts)on and substitute "abortion" (or the right to choose) into this rights discussion.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)It doesn't change my views on the repeal of the 2nd Amendment at all.
melm00se
(5,075 posts)the underlying issues/questions re: 'rights'.
I ask you to substitute abortion for 2nd amendment rights and ask you to think about your reaction if the right to choose was under the same assault as the right to keep and bear arms is now.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)That their intransigence is going to end up with a complete repeal eventually unless they start talking reasonable regulation. They are the ones taking the hard lines, we just want to ban assault weapons. But if they want to lean so heavily on the Second Amendment, then we should repeal it. They are bringing the angst on themselves.
yagotme
(3,948 posts)No, many on your side of the point wish to "Ban them all. Round them up." This is why many pro-gunners are pushing back.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 26, 2018, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)
Therefore, God did not create the right of men to possess guns.
God can be said to have given mankind the ability to speak and even to write (with a finger of course), but God did not give mankind guns.
Therefore, God did not give mankind the right to possess a gun.
Guns are manufactured by men, not by God.
It is absurd to claim that the right to possess a gun is God-given.
It simply cannot be.
The other rights in the Bill of Rights can be said to be part of the natural order, or, if you will, granted by God. But the Second Amendment with the right to bear arms cannot have been granted by God. The right to defend oneself may be natural, but not the right to bear arms and harm and be harmed by AR-15s in the first place.
Of course, --- some may still believe in the God of the Old Testament -- an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But not since Hillel and Jesus do people believe int that. It does not work well for anyone who is smaller than an attacker.
Jesus did not resist his arrest and faced death without defending himself. That's another story. People who believe in living according to Jesus' teachings are pacifists and probably would not use a gun.
Above all, an AR-15 is a horribly destructive weapon. It should have no place in our homes, on our streets and certainly it should have no place in our schools or churches.
Imagine a country in which we did not have any school or restaurant or church or movie theater or mall shootings. Imagine a country in which we had no shootings with AR-15s. Imagine a country in which people did not shoot each other or themselves.
What country would you really rather live in -- the one we have now with all the shootings or one in which guns were harder to get and we had either many fewer shootings or no shootings at all?
We need to work and cooperate to make our country a peaceful place. That means no AR-15s anywhere and many fewer guns.
Abnredleg
(1,002 posts)is a unalienable right. How can we achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we can't defend ourselves?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)If all guns are illegal, and I am not suggesting they should be, then you defend yourself without a gun.
The right to self-defense does not permit us to have atom bombs, other nuclear weapons or weapons that impose unconscionable damage on those against whom we are defending ourselves.
Note:
If individuals who possessed guns only used them to defend themselves against others with guns, no one would suggest that the guns be made illegal. The problem is, the dilemma we face is, that people use guns a) to bully other (usually unarmed) people, b) to shoot other (usually unarmed) people, and c) to kill other (usually unarmed and innocent) people.
If gun-lovers want to keep their guns, they have a very limited time to prevent these mass shootings and gun accidents because the American people have had enough.
Most of us are not obsessed with shooting guns. We have better things to do, and with each shooting, especially each mass shooting, Americans are becoming less and less patient with the gun fanatics and more and more inclined to end the right to possess these extremely lethal weapons.
We don't want atom bombs in our communities. That's obvious to everyone.
Well, we don't want weapons of war, weapons that can kill over 40 people in a matter of minutes, in our communities either.
And age rules would not have prevented the shooting, the killing, the massacre in Las Vegas. So if you represent the gun manufacturers, please tell them to change their line of business because we don't want guns in our streets.
If guns are against the law, it simplifies the work of the police. If you have a gun, you are automatically a criminal. It's easy to prove who has the guns. And if having a gun means that you are a criminal, police can just arrest everyone who has a gun and be done with it.
Possessing addictive drugs without a prescription is against the law because most of the addictive drugs can kill. The police know that if they find someone in possession of addictive drugs, they can arrest that person.
That is how it will be with guns unless gun lovers figure out some way to end the killing short of arming babies.
Adding more guns will cause more deaths.
Telling schools to add teachers with guns is like telling a person addicted to a drug to take more of the drug. It will end in disaster.
Abnredleg
(1,002 posts)I was merely pointing out that the underlying right was self protection and not the right to own any weapon one desires.
Abnredleg
(1,002 posts)Straw Man
(6,786 posts)I am not responsible for the acts of criminals and psychopaths. I am not a law enforcement officer. I have no superpowers. The fact that some people do bad things with guns is in no way my fault or my responsibility.
Let me try an analogy for you so that you can see how absurd your contention is:
"If booze-lovers want to keep their booze, they have a very limited time to prevent these drunk-driving accidents and alchohol-related violence, because the American people have had enough."
Do you enjoy a cocktail or two after a hard day at work? Better get out there and get those drunks off the road, or the party's over.
hack89
(39,180 posts)possible but extremely hard - which is the way it should be.
CozyMystery
(653 posts)Several of my friends and I got permission from our high school to attend. It was disgusting to hear what our legislators had to say. Not surprised when Georgia didn't want anything to do with the ERA.
sarisataka
(21,264 posts)That must mean discrimination against LGBT is fine because they have no right to equal treatment. Reinstate slavery, no biggie just change the Constitution.
Is this really the road you want to go down?
DetlefK
(16,489 posts)What rights do people have and what rights do people not have?
And how do you know?
e.g. Do we have a right to drink alcohol until we fall over and die?
e.g. Do we have a right to promiscuity?
e.g. Do we have a right to use communally owned ressources for personal, private gain?
e.g. Do artificial intelligences, who clearly have a personality and can think and talk, deserve to be treated as people?
e.g. Do we humans have a right to a basic income when the employers replace us with robots?
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)All "culture" or "government" can do is offer up punishment as consequence for what society deems socially unacceptable use of said rights.
1: Yes, drink yourself dead.
2: Yes, fuck yourself crosseyed.
3: Yes, steal others blind, put a bucket over their heads and whack 'em in the dick until they scream themselves deaf if that's your thing.
4: "Deserve" is subjective, but if they -can- think and talk and believe themselves people, yes, they have that right to determine for themselves independent of human input.
5: No, because "Basic income" is reliant on the support of an outside force and cannot be defined as a "right" without the support of a social group or government. That is outside the purview of individual rights and instead falls under the header of "government entitlement".
No government, nor social group, nor any acting socio-political force can take away your right to free choice. Government can only intervene after the fact, but even then, your rights have been exercised.
sarisataka
(21,264 posts)Do people have a right to life?
I believe that people as sentient beings have rights. They are inherent, not granted and may only be immorally deprived.
e.g. Do we have a right to drink alcohol until we fall over and die? I think people have the right to choose to end their life however they wish as long as it does not also harm anyone else
e.g. Do we have a right to promiscuity? As long as you can find willing partners
e.g. Do we have a right to use communally owned ressources for personal, gain If solely for the benefit of the individual then the community must approve
e.g. Do artificial intelligences, who clearly have a personality and can think and talk, deserve to be treated as people? No, though machines may mimic personality, it is simply following its programming. At this point we have not created sentient, self-aware computers
e.g. Do we humans have a right to a basic income when the employers replace us with robots? Yes, people have the right to the basic needs to live
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)until a natural death.
AR-15s and other similar weapons deprive many Americans each year of their fundamental right to live.
Making possession of certain military weapons by people other than the police or the military or certain rare exceptions illegal will guarantee the right to live to many people.
Think of the victims in Las Vegas and the victims at Parkland. If the shooters had not had their guns all of those people would now be enjoying their right to live.
People do have rights, but they do not have the right to deprive others of their rights.
If Americans could have their guns and not shoot at people, we would not be discussing this. Sometimes one person's right intrudes on another person's right. When that happens, we decide which of the rights is more important and protect that one.
In the case of guns that can kill quickly and thus many people, the right of those shot to their lives is a higher priority as a right than the right of the shooter to possess his gun. Therefore the person who could be killed's right is prioritized and the right of the possessor of the gun can be done away with.
I would say that gun owners have a few months in which to stop these killings. And if they don't stop them, Americans will decide that the "right" to own a gun or at least a gun that is as quick to kill as the AR-15, is subordinate to the rights of others to live.
And when that happens, the AR-15 and other guns of its kind will be outlawed.
I love venison and do not oppose guns per se. I oppose guns that are made to kill and maim and not really to hunt. I oppose guns that can easily be made to shoot many people.
Teachers should not have to manage a gun along with grading papers, preparing lessons, dealing with parents, etc.
Schools should be places of peace.
sarisataka
(21,264 posts)That is the one who is claiming there are no intrinsic rights only those which are granted. I firmly believe in inherent rights which are limited only when they intrude upon another person's rights.
But I am not unreasonable. I campaigned among gun owners when my state was debating a domestic violence law which was successfully passed with overwhelming support. I believe that action alone puts me above 98% of action taken by a gun control "activists".
Since you seem to think I have the ability, as a gun owner, what should I personally do to stop mass shootings?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)guns. That would be a start.
And I saw an item today about making gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for insuring that their products are used safely. That would mean that the manufacturers and sellers would pay if someone who should not have the gun they produce or sell uses it to kill an innocent person. The manufacturer or seller would be responsible for insuring that the buyer of a gun is qualified to have the gun, i.e., not insane, mature, has good judgment, etc.
And of course backing a ban on the high-powered guns is the best thing anyone can do.
sarisataka
(21,264 posts)At this point I could see requiring some sort of safety class proof in order to purchase a firearm. Perhaps that can be expanded to license an individual owner. They would have the option then to own zero one or more firearms. There was a time I supported registration but the band them all and melt them down crowd has pushed me away from that.
Insurance does not bother me, I have it. It is very cheap. I will point out however that is soon as it was discovered insurance is offered, through the NRA (surprise surprise), it is suddenly became murder insurance and anyone who bought Insurance on their guns was obviously looking to kill someone. It can't go both ways either insurance is good or it is bad.
I believe manufacturer should be held responsible for a defective product. However if they release it into the market and all necessary steps are followed but it still ends up in the hands of someone who should not have had the gun that is not on the manufacturer. This latest case is a perfect example. Everybody did everything they should have in the sale but because other agencies beyond their control drop the ball there was no flag in the system to stop the sale. That the manufacturer nor the seller should be held accountable for.
Some years ago I had a teenage cousin killed by a drunk driver. I do not hold Ford responsible nor do I hold Jack Daniels responsible. However that driver who had 9 previous DUIs went out and bought that truck with no background check from a private seller, walked into a liquor store bottle bottle of whiskey, locked and loaded and proceeded to kill one and crippled another person for life. The manufacturers of those products had no ability to control how they were used.
The thing is had he used a gun as the tool of death he would still be in jail. But since it was just a vehicle and he was drunk he is out after a short stint. I would bet $100 he still drinks and drives even though he has had his license revoked for life and has killed one, crippled another and injured three people previously.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)In what state did that drunk driving incident occur?
sarisataka
(21,264 posts)Back in the late nineties.
sarisataka
(21,264 posts)Forewarning I'm about to get technical.
I have one rifle that I inherited. It is a literal elephant rifle. I could use it to hunt bison, Kodiak or polar bear but really it is overpowered even for them. I know it will punch a hole through a half inch of plate steel because I've done it. It is a single-shot rifle and would be about the most worthless thing to use for a crime unless you want to destroy someone's car.
The 223 round fired by the AR-15 is what I use for hunting varmints such as woodchucks, prairie dogs or at most coyotes. For that I have a bolt action rifle that holds 5 rounds.
I carried the AR-15 military cousin for 20 years and have intimate, first-hand experience on what it can and cannot do. It is not high-powered at all. It is however high capacity. That may be what you actually need to focus on.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)that I am a musician who knows languages. I have expertise in some other areas too. I don't expect others to understand the jargon in the areas in which I have expertise. Gun owners are snobbish about those of us who don't understand gun jargon. A weapon that has been used to kill an innocent person is a weapon too dangerous to possess in a society in which so many are killed by guns.
People in other countries have guns, but don't use them so often to kill innocent people. I think that those who have or use guns need to understand that they will lose their right to own any gun if the killings continue. The anger about guns, the disgust with gun ownership, the fear of crazed killers who get guns, is becoming very great.
I don't play the piano after a certain time at night because I would wake up the neighbors. Gun owners and enthusiasts, in my opinion, have a very short time to take charge of the problem of guns killing innocent people.
It's sad that we have so many killers in our country. The type and technology of the gun that killed a person's son or daughter, sister or brother, wife or husband is of utterly no importance. It is the loss of a loved one that matters. And only that that matters.
The NRA and all who support the gun industry and gun ownership need to respond to the genuine grief and sorrow of people who lose loved ones due to guns and shooting and especially to people who are injured, maimed for life often by irresponsible gun owners and shooters.
I am shocked by the defensive posture of the NRA and gun owners on this topic. The right to live by far exceeds in importance any right to own or play with or brandish or hold or shoot or carry or possess a gun. And gun owners need to take responsibility for their part in each death that is caused by a gun. Because all share in that responsibility until something is done to stop the killing.
Straw Man
(6,786 posts)Only when you peddle misinformation in order to advance a prohibition agenda.
That is literally every type of firearm ever produced. Do you favor total prohibition?
Unless you are trying to craft public policy to limit that type and technology. Then it is of paramount importance.
The right to live is addressed in the criminal code, by the prohibitions against murder. This is a false dichotomy.
Absolutely not. Ludicrous. Do all people who imbibe alcohol share responsibility for drunken driving deaths? Are college kids who smoke weed responsible for the horrible murders that the drug cartels carry out routinely?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"And I saw an item today about making gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for insuring that their products are used safely. That would mean that the manufacturers and sellers would pay if someone who should not have the gun they produce or sell uses it to kill an innocent person. The manufacturer or seller would be responsible for insuring that the buyer of a gun is qualified to have the gun, i.e., not insane, mature, has good judgment, etc."
Because operators of automobiles kill more people than rifles do.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)If I had my way, we would have much better public transportation, and I would be relieved of the burden of driving.
(I am a cart-lady. We are a special breed in Los Angeles. We go grocery shopping with carts and walk to and from the store.)
We need to do everything possible to make sure that cars and driving are as safe as possible.
It took many years and a great deal of pressure just to get car manufacturers to put seat belts in cars. We could probably install technology in cars that would force the car to stop if the car perceives a certain signal to cars driving in its lane and direction. We could put a breathalyzer on the steering wheel of the car that would force the car to stop and not go forward or backward if the person breathing on it can't pass a breathalyzer test. Maybe my ideas sound crazy or extreme, but we could and should do a lot more to make driving safer. Better lighting at night on busy streets could help too.
Drunk driving is a huge problem. It baffles me that marijuana is illegal in so many states, but alcohol is everywhere.
Anyway, I'm a grandmother so I am very aware of the problems you are raising.
They do not detract from the severe problem of shooting deaths in our country. Other countries have guns. Austria and Switzerland have lots of hunters for example. But the US has to many murders, so many killings with guns. And every gun death or injury is a tragedy for those who love the victim.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)You are responsible for the deaths caused by automobiles.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)In California where I live, I am required to buy auto insurance (and the police will check to see that I pay for it and have it) when I drive.
The price of my car insurance covers the cost of settlements and verdicts and claims from other people's auto accidents.
Yes. I pay for the hospital care and recovery and other losses that occur when people have car accidents. That is because I am required by law to buy car insurance even though I drive very little and don't have accidents.
So I pay my share of the cost of the deaths caused by automobiles. So does everyone else who drives and buys car insurance.
Guns should work the same way. If you own a gun, you pay for an insurance policy each year that covers the cost of the lawsuits and claims that people bring if they are harmed by others' guns.
A gun owner should be required to buy insurance for his/her gun.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)deliberately run over 3-4 people or even one person. I carry insurance on my small collection, but it will not pay out if I shoot my neighbor. I carry a one million dollar policy on my property, but it will not pay out if a person commits suicide on my property.
Straw Man
(6,786 posts)Unless you believe in the agency of inanimate objects, I think you would have to amend that to say that other Americans, using these weapons, are responsible for this deprivation of the right to live. And we have legal structures in place to deal with them.
The overwhelming majority of them do. With 80 million gun owners in the US and 33,000 gun deaths per year, that means that .04% of the gun owners in the US are involved in a homicide, suicide, or accident in a given year. So 99.96% of US gun owners don't shoot anybody.
You seem to have this strange notion that average citizens who own guns should form some kind of vigilante force to prevent gun deaths. I don't even know how you envision that working.
Response to sarisataka (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
marble falls
(62,457 posts)होव दो योउ लिके योउर् चिपति मदे
sarisataka
(21,264 posts)
marble falls
(62,457 posts)sarisataka
(21,264 posts)
marble falls
(62,457 posts)guess we'll have to finish off that six-pack in the parking lot - take some of the popcorn home with you!
My anchors aweigh to your semper fi! 
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)No one. It is a foundational principle of the US that rights are native to the people. Any group who is able, is free to found a nation on an alternative principle.
My point is, rewriting some part of the Declaration, Constitution or Bill of Rights may require a new convention and may be viewed by many as the foundation of a new and different country. The Founders foresaw this possible exact need and made provisions for it.
Since governments occasionally resist being abolished, the Founders made another provision.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)will be prioritized above that Second Amendment right because the right of an innocent person to live is a greater, higher right than the right to possess a gun.
So those who want to keep their guns need to figure out ways to protect the lives of other without endangering others.
Guns in schools will end in still more disasters.
Guns in schools are a horrible idea.
It's one thing to go through the gauntlet and have every bag examined at the entrance of a courtroom or other government building.
It would be quite a time-consuming, horrible thing to have guards at the schooldoors checking through students' and teachers' bags to be sure no one was bringing in a gun.
It's much less expensive and easier to just outlaw powerful weapons in the first place, and that is what is likely to happen unless gun advocates wise up and stop buying and selling the weapons that are killing innocent people.
That is a dangerously naive belief.
With the possible exception of some WWII era collectibles, no gun I own has ever killed anyone, innocent or otherwise. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Are you saying that unless gun owners stop buying and selling AR-15s, then AR-15s will be outlawed? Not much of a choice, is it?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)The right of self-defense is an extension of the right to life.
Arming teachers would be a bad idea. Generally it is best to have people with professional training and experience do what they have experience and training doing. Philly has a school police division with officers assigned to schools.
Schools can have the same metal detectors we have airports. Many in Philly already have them.
Examining bags isn't necessary if they have no metal in them.
Outlawing powerful weapons has already happened. With certain limited exceptions weapons over .50 cal are not considered small arms by the ATF and require extensive/expensive background checks and fees to acquire. Full-auto weapons have the same restrictions and the bump stocks used in the Las Vegas shooting are being considered for restrictions similar to full-auto firearms.
Is it a more horrible thing to have police and deputy sheriffs patrolling a school or having a mass murder? Law enforcement is common sight in a mall or an airport. Is it expensive? Sure it is. It's cheaper than outlawing guns. In addition, guns can be built by hand by anyone with the resources to spend a few hundred on tools and some patience. With 3D printing a lot more is possible now than even 10 years ago.
The primary chemical used to make IEDs is acetone found in nail polish remover. Should we ban that as well?
DetlefK
(16,489 posts)My OP was not on the technicalities of changing the 2nd Amendment. My point wasn't that changing a constitution is possible.
My point was that rights only exist because we say that they exist.
As soon as we say that human rights extend to everybody, slavery becomes illegal.
As soon as we say that certain minorities have a right to be treated equally, discrimination becomes illegal.
As soon as we say that you do not have an inherent right to own guns, it becomes possible to regulate their possession in any way we deem fit.
What about the right to free speech?
All these trolls who spread fake news and won't stop lying, who sow unrest and destructive rumors, they are engaging in free speech. And yet lying and slandering is illegal.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)A human right is an inherent attribute of humans. The right to life is a human right.
Regarding slavery, is not obvious that human rights extend to all humans? Slavery didn't become illegal until a law was created. Laws don't create human rights. Laws provide criteria to characterize human deeds into conforming and non-conforming actions. The non-conforming actions are adjudicated in the courts as crimes and the guilty are punished.
Rights hopefully lead to laws in societies with governments that concern themselves with the people rather than the rulers.
All lies are wrong; not all lies are illegal.
Slavery continued in the US until the governments of certain states were forced to recognize some particular folks as human. Violence often results when one group stops recognizes another group as less human and more of an enemy.
As much as people want to say that most things are not simple binaries (black/white, good/bad...) we have not much reaction to our governments grouping huge numbers of people into either allies or enemies. Were certain Afghani factions allies? Sure in the '80s. For the last 20 years, not so much. How about those for/against gun laws?
There is such a thing as making a topic a bit too simple.
DetlefK
(16,489 posts)Why can't we simply make a list of human rights? Because we can't agree on what's a right and what's not a right.
In hindsight we say that slavery is immoral because there's a human right to freedom, but slavery was perfectly moral for millenia. If nobody accepts that a certain right is a right, is it still a right?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)The Declaration outlined the basics. The Bill of Rights further details those rights. The BoR specifies that those contained therein are not the only rights which exist. A party is free to argue in court for an additional right or some currently denied aspect of any of those listed.
Morality does not derive from laws. Laws are facile attempts by people to protect themselves and their rights. Slavery was never moral. It was legal for long time because a majority of people accepted that those enslaved weren't people. In religion it is said that most major heresies arise due to a basic misunderstanding of the nature of God. In government, most major government sponsored moral crimes are due to a misunderstanding of nature of humans.
The idea of national foundational documents has, since 1789, spread everywhere. There are almost 200 UN member states and almost all of them have developed such documents. It has come to be accepted worldwide that a basic step toward nationhood is the articulation of a Constitution which includes a list of rights.
The US was founded on the idea that people have rights like they have limbs. The main aim of government should be to protect the rights of a minority from the will of a majority. Read my sigline. 
Have a great day.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)instead of by the electoral college?
Millions of Californians were basically disenfranchised during the 2016 presidential election. Let's change that.
The president should represent ALL Americans, not just Americans in 49 of the 50 states.
We in California would like to be represented by the president of the United States. We aren't represented by this one because of the electoral college.
Always Right
(84 posts)The purpose of the electoral college exists to prevent a couple of densely populated areas from controlling the entire country.
Without the electoral college, New York and California could rule the entire country.
It is precisely the same reason why small states like Hawaii, Rhode Island and Wyoming each get the same 2 Senators that New York and California have. Should we do away with that too?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)If the majority of Americans live in California and New York, then we in California and New York should decide who is president.
To do anything else is to subjugate those of us in California and New York to the will of the minority who live in other states.
But of course, the majority of the people do not live in California and/or New York.
When the United States was first formed, we were a nation of states.
We have become a nation of people, of individuals.
We individuals who live in California and New York (Texas and Florida, etc.) should as individuals have the same right to choose our president as those who live as individuals in Montana, Vermont or Kansas. Same right.
I cannot even call the current individual in the White House "my president." He did not win my vote. But more important he lost by a huge margin of votes in my state, California. He does not represent me or my state. He does not represent my nation. He represents the electoral college and a minority of Americans.
That is the sad but true truth.
The majority of individuals living in this country should choose the president. One person, one vote.
That is what is fair.
The Senate can still represent the states and represent those living in less populated areas. Senators serve six-year terms. They have more power in that sense than even the president.
We should do away with the electoral college.
We gave women the vote. We gave former slaves the right to vote.
We should do away with the electoral college.
Doing away with the electoral college will encourage more people to vote. Those who live in states we call "red" or "blue" and who dissent from the majority of voters in their state will be more likely to vote because their vote will count even if they vote for the party that is not the majority in their state.
So doing away with the electoral college will be good for all Americans. It will make our elections more inclusive, encourage voting and insure that the president is truly elected by the majority of Americans.
Right now, the man who sits in the White House was elected by a minority of
Americans. That's as he would say, "sad."
Makes a joke of our country.
MarvinGardens
(781 posts)While I agree that at this point in our history, the President should be elected by popular vote, this would require agreement by states that would lose power in this change. It seems unlikely, but there is another way.
The total size of the House is set by statute, not by the Constitution. Increasing the size of the House will give more EVs to all states, but the EV proportions will more closely approach state populations, and EC results will deviate less from popular vote totals. It will have the beneficial side effect of making our House representation more granular, local, and more difficult to gerrymander. It would be difficult for a subsequent Congress to undo. How many House members will vote to abolish their own seats?
This change can be made with a simple majority in both houses plus the President's signature. No constitutional amendment needed.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Right now, he doesn't. And that is not based on a judgment of Trump. That is based on the fact that he was not elected by the majority of voters in the country.
Saaaaad!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Perhaps state governors should represent the interests of the people of their states.
Perhaps the House of Representatives should serve as a check against federal usurpation of state powers.
Perhaps the federal government should operate as a unifying force for the states and not the answer to the various needs of individuals.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)We live in a society in which people move from state to state.
When the United States was first formed, people moved and then stayed on land they "settled" and owned.
As our country has changed, we are no longer just a unified group of individual states, we are a nation of people.
If we are to stay unified, then we need to recognize that we are a nation of individual voters, of people. The state governments are great for organizing at the state level, but when it comes to electing the president, we are and should be one nation. Each citizen should have an equal say, an equal vote, in who becomes president. Otherwise, eventually, we will lack the unity we need as a nation.
Our history is the story of separate states, separate regions, becoming one. That's just the way it is.
Electing the president by popular vote will be another step in the process of unifying our country in ways that matter.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)The idea of restricting certain politicians to certain limited areas appeals to me.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)those of people living outside California.
I want 'ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.'
We tell other countries they should have one person, one vote, but we don't have it here.
That's a scandal. A big one. Over 39 million voters big. That's the population of California.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)instead of unitary systems like Japan, South Korea etc. The latter tends to be kind of authoritarian. Also, our country is too large (geographically and population) for a unitary system to be effective.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/constitutional-law/Unitary-and-federal-systems
Are you basing this on principle or a couple of elections?
Here is a question, what if we went with a national popular vote for POTUS with uniform rules across the board, and the closet Republicans living on the coasts turn out in large enough numbers, would you still support the popular vote regardless of the consequences?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)as the vote of someone from Montana or Vermont.
That is what I am asking.
I think that one of the benefits of electing the president by popular vote is that Republicans in strongly Democratic states and Democrats in strongly Republican states would come and vote.
Everyone should vote. And all votes should count in electing a president.
Trump lost by three million votes, 4.5 million or close to that in California alone.
Every vote should count in a presidential election.
On edit: I'm not suggesting that Californians are going to wage a rebellion to get an equal voice in electing the president, but one of the reasons we choose to be a democratic nation is that it is better for everyone if we elect our leaders democratically (one vote, one person) rather than through violence. It is important to the security of our nation that each voter's vote in presidential elections count equally.
It is easier to accept and live with and respect the outcome of a truly democratic election in which you know your vote was given the same respect as everyone else's vote than the outcome of a, as Trump stated so often said, "rigged" election in which someone else's vote counted more than yours.
Right now, our presidential elections are "rigged" so that the votes in some states count more than the votes in other states.
That's bad for the security of our nation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)is that the POTUS is basically the chief executive of the executive branch and not much else. That means no invasions without Congress declaring war, etc.
I have often thought of the same about more turn out in all states.
We were not created to be a true democracy because every true democracy before then imploded within a couple of generations. My understanding is that California has entire counties with no representation while LA County has something like 15 senators. If some corporation wants to something that would adversely affect the northern counties, (and only affect the northern counties) all the corporation has to do is buy off a few politicians from the coast. That is why I am against statewide referendums. If passage only affects rural areas, especially adversely, all I have to do is blanket the airwaves in urban areas with propaganda. I spent a couple of years at Travis near Vacaville. Most of the state reminds me of some third world countries I have been to.
all of the 4.5 million were in California.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)We have a population of over 22 million people. Out of all the states, only Texas has a larger population than just the Southern California portion of our state, but we hae NO SENATOR from our area.
Representatives are apportioned according to population. The population of Los Angeles County is enormous.
In 2015 it was over 10 million people in Los Angles County.
https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+Los+Angeles+County&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
40 of the states in the United States have a population under 10 million people.
https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+Los+Angeles+County&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
That means that Los Angeles County (not city) is larger in terms of population than 40 of our states. And we have no senator from Southern California, much less from Los Angeles County.
That's pretty bad. It's really horrible.
Each state has 2 senators.
Michigan has a total population for the state of between 9 and 10 million, less than Los Angeles County and it has 14 representatives in the House. So if LA County has 15, it's pretty close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
But, I only count 11 representatives form Los Angeles County according to this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_officials_in_Los_Angeles
I don't know how accurate it is.
There are 18 districts that are in Los Angeles County according to this map, but I am not certain that these districts are completely in Los Angeles County.
http://cao.lacounty.gov/igr/PDF/congressional_districts.pdf
Julia Brownley's district stretches into San Bernardino County for example. We are just a huge county. Housing prices are astronomical because so many Americans want to live here.
State districts in California are drawn up by a bipartisan commission.
But California is very Democratic. The 2016 election proved that.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in Wyoming (in the state capital) each county sends two senators, the House represents the people.
The reason the founders set the Congress the way they did was for another reason.
It was to fix the flaws in the Articles of Confederation. The House is to represent the people. The Senate is to represent the interests of the state governments.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)one single resident in the Senate. That's an area with a population larger than the population of each of 40 other states. We have two senators for our state. They are both from Northern California. It has been this way since 1992.
We now have Kevin De Leon from Southern California running against Dianne Feinstein in a primary for the Senate.
they have house members to do that. The Senate represents the interests of the state government. My federal senators are not from my county either.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)state government. Senators are now directly elected by the people of the state.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Politicians represent the interests of the parties/ideologies and various interest groups (and their own pocket/opinion). They actually don't give a shit about the unwashed masses. My basic opinion of all politicians ranges from skeptical to cynical.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)interest groups from my area agree with me.
Join your local Democratic Club and meet the politicians personally.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)lives in my city and I run into him at the gun range, county fair etc. I knocked on doors for him.
Ironically, Cheney's money mostly came from California.
On some issues (like guns) most on both sides agree with me.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)People move from town to town, state to state and even nation to nation. Not long ago I worked as a contractor to company near LAX. Every third week I would fly from Philly and spend the week there. I've worked in several different states and lived in 3.
We have always been a nation of people. It sounds as if you want states to vanish and the federal government to take over everywhere. The US was created through and by the cooperation of states. Part of the checks and balances system built into Congress is the House of Reps. These folks are elected every 2 years, hold the purse strings in that all spending bills must originate there. Senators have the role of representing the state in DC. Reps represent the individuals.
Tell me this, is it fair that all 55 electoral votes from CA go to a single candidate? There are a few states that apportion the votes according to the ratio of the popular vote.
The 1790 census shows that the most populous state had about ten times as many voters as the least populous state. These disparities are new. Worse maybe but not new.
The electing of a President carries along with it the election of a Vice President. The VP serves in the role as President of the Senate. He votes during a tie vote, etc. The VP is a powerful office and, along with the President, should work in a role of leadership. There needs to be a balance between states will large populations and those with smaller populations.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)I'm great with that.
But the president is supposed to be the president and represent ALL THE PEOPLE. Trump was not elected by the people, not elected by the popular vote. He does not represent all of us equally. It isn't his fault, but he doesn't.
If Californians' votes counted as equal to the votes of people in less populated states, Hillary would be president, and my vote would have counted.
We have created a mess.
When our nation was first designed, only property owners could vote in many states. Women could not vote. Slaves could not vote.
Now, people who live in populous states can vote in presidential elections, but in California, many of our votes don't count AT ALL.
That's wrong. It makes our country less united and less secure.
That's the way it is.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)I am for whatever it takes to make a vote in Casper equal to a vote in Los Angeles. This would involve spreading districts across state lines and I don't see why that can't be done. I think some balance needs to remain to balance the influence among the states and maybe each state keeps 2 electors plus those for representatives that are allocated by population. Maybe that drops to 1 electors per state.
I do kind of agree with you that the representation isn't balanced.
spin
(17,493 posts)however if you assume it will be easy you are wrong.
If is is then what. Overturning the Second Amendment would be child’s play compared to trying to confiscate all the firearms in our nation.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)We don't have the votes even for a bump stock ban.
Seriously, we are at a place where we may get some laws in place that could make it more difficult for criminals and mentally ill who are dangerous to buy firearms.
We may even have some movement to improve temporary restraining order that removes firearms immediately from people who are going off the rails but can't be involuntarily committed.
If we stop talking about gun bans or repealing the 2nd, we may reduce gun violence.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,596 posts)Mankind is actually doing it all the time:
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/cpa-iraq/democracy/blaustein.html
https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/gov/constexport.pdf
Since the Founders drafted the US Constitution almost all of the members nations of the UN have followed suit writing their own Constitutions. Many have studied the US document and had US help in drafting their own.
Certainly there are wise intelligent souls in many parts of the globe. The Founders are not unique in that respect. They were the first. Officials and leaders from other countries studied our Constitution. Can a constitution be written which doesn't protect the right to keep and bear arms? I'm certain it can. Our original Constitution did not. As a consequence a Bill of Rights was demanded in order for many states to ratify what is now the law of the 'land'.
The Constitution and, in particular the 2A, has been around for long time. I wouldn't be making any capricious changes.