In light of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech, the question of gun control has been raised around SAMOHI. Readers of the Grip Doctrine, we know you have opinions on this controversial issue. We would therefore like to invite you to submit to us anything about the issue.
We hope that you can take this opportunity to share your opinions on this vital topic.
So post a comment, tell us:
Should federal and state governments criminalize, limit, or regulate firearm possession? Should citizens have the right to own firearms?
The Grip Doctrine.
70 comments:
Personally, I think that every American should have the right to carry a gun. It's not like telling law abiding citizens that they can't is going to stop criminals from getting guns illegaly. Plus, it's in the Constitution. Saying that guns are the reason people kill people is stupid. People kill people because they're fucked up.
You want our weapons?
"Come and get them"
food for thought (aka: logic)
2nd amendment:
right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia
(no, you're not in a militia!)
also, guns don't kill people- people kill people
(duh!)
but take the gun out the persons hand and they can't do much killing
db...
a militia is made up of everyday citizens. It does not say well regulated "military" but "militia"...one being government recruited/trained...the other being patriotic civilians.
Tak the gun out of the equation? very cute but impossible. Unless you have a magic wand. I'll entertain it nonetheless...very easy to make pipe bombs and other such devices that could easily kill the same amount.
sure, take the gun out of the equation, you can still kill. there are people that can kill without guns. those people are ninjas. but they take a bit longer whereas with guns you can be dead in a split second.
ps people are fucked up. you should use your guns to kill them if you are such an advocate for guns.
nra4lyfe
i agree with "db" on this one
Nice ninja comment, and of course you conveniently don't mention anything about how easy it is to make homemade bombs :)
Timothy McVeigh didn't use any guns either...and killed a couple of people in a matter of seconds.
"You should use guns to kill them if you are such an advocate"
YES, exactly my point. Imagine if Virginia Tech was a "gun free" zone. The students there would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon and YES, they wowuld have used their guns to kill this maniac!!!
Only law-abiding citizens obey gun laws....
Just wanted to throw my own two cents in on this. I believe that the Second Amendment has been misread through almost all of American history, and truly does pertain specifically to a slightly more rigid definition of "militia" than "guy who wants a gun". In response to the comment that only law-abiding citizens obey gun laws: Nobody is attempting to ban guns, but the killer at VATech had been psychiatrically evaluated as potentially dangerous to others before the massacre. Would it be too much to ask that gun dealers be required to at least know this information prior to selling someone a gun, and possibly banning the sale of guns to people identified as "a potential immediate threat to the safety of others"? Lastly, those who know me know that, despite my generally liberal inclination, I have long been a defender and potential supporter of John McCain. After watching his response to the tragedy (He said at a press conference the same day that it did not effect his opinion on gun rights, and did not express his sadness regarding the loss of 30-odd young lives), I have finally lost my ability to support him. His previous moves rightward were all panders on the issue, buthe remained a man of character and integrity. To respond to a tragedy such as this so callously taints that integrity and the sense I had of his good judgement. Contrasting his comments on the issue with those of everyone else, but especially the Democratic candidates for President, I remembered why we need to elect a Democratic president in 2008. It is fine to disagree on issues, but the modern Republican party has become, as an institution (but not as individuals), a party not of ideological differences, but instead a party symbloizing the corruption of basic values, like compassion for the poor and empathy for those who lose children in gun violence. I repeat, i am not talking about Republicans, but about the Party, and the candidates who are effectively its standard-bearers. finally, McCain probably has issued a statement since I wrote this, so don't come and be like "gotcha". The point is, he used a tragedy to pander for political points, and to the best of my knowledge, so did the rest of the Republican candidates. No Democratic candidate used this awful event to press for stricter gun laws; they respected the grief of the nation and decided to feel first, and legislate later. To me, that's true integrity and character. You ought to be ashamed, Mr. McCain.
Support your right to bear arms...wear a T-shirt.
I'm with the liberals on this one. The constitution is a 200 some-odd year old document created after a militia of common people defeated a tyranical empire. The reason for including the clause in our constitution was to provide the "virtuous farmers" of the recently formed USA with the means to "protect freedom." However, with, among others, a full police force and, at least until very recently, every country in the world looking to us as an example of a pretty fucking tight country, a "militia" is hardly necessary.
I mean, I haven't lately seen a people army lined up outside the white house to fight a tryrannical and imperialist leader
I think its REALLY funny how liberals interpret the constitution EXTREMELY strictly when it involves issues of free speech, and stuff thats on their agenda, but then they are contradictory and talk about how it is 200 years old when its something not on there agenda.
I think you people need to read the "Blind Allegiance" and "Prositution" articles on this site and take what they are saying.
you cant love the constitution and use it as backup one second, and then talk about how out of date it is the next minute.
I think its really funny how conservatives do nothing but criticize liberals.The reason I said we don't need to own guns is because we DO NOT NEED them.
Writers of the bill of rights included the second amendment because without a militia, we would have had no defense. We were already horrible in debt, we couldn't afford a standing army, but without out militia we would have been mincemeat for any country that wanted to attack us, including the Britons. But currently, we don't need a people's army because we have a real one. Wake up people. The countrie's not going anywhere. The only thing that citizens use guns for is killing other citizens and/or furry woodland creatures and, while I'm all for the torturing of squirels, I'm willing to give that up for safety. Owning a weapon is a "freedom," but so is living. Once the negative effects outweigh the benefits of allowing people to own guns, we should realize that it's time to put a stop to it.
I call the constitution out of date because, as far as this issue is concerned, it is.
"the countrie's not going anywhere"
if you are going to make an arguement about our constitution and bill of rights, when you are trying to say "the country is..." please dont say "the countrie's".... it kinda degrates your point from the getgo.
but ignoring that,
it doesn't matter if you think some one shouldn't have a right to own a gun, this country was based on the principle of freedom. Just because you don't believe/agree with something, doesn't mean it is the right answer, and doesn't mean others in this country should be punished for having there beliefs.
You are right, you grew up in Santa Monica, in an urban area.... there is no reason for you to have a gun... but if you grew up in Wyoming, on a ranch, and you want to go out with your friends and shoot birds, you should have a right to.... and if you live in a bad neighborhood cause you cant afford a big house, in safe santa monica, doesnt mean you shouldnt have the safety blanket of a gun, because know-it-all twisted satire, safe in his pad in santa monica, doesn't see a point in owning a gun....
stop thinking partisan. stop thinking about YOURSELF. stop thinking about YOUR BELIEFS.
It is not about you.
It is about the principles of this country.
and the rights of others to disagree with you.
so if a hick hillbilly redneck wants to own a gun to shoot deer, or a father in east la wants a gun to feel like he can protect his family, then they should have that right....
and if were going to outlaw guns.
we should outlaw dildos.
because who needs a dildo.
No one is tryng to stop that farmer in Wyoming from havng his deer hunting rifle. What people are trying to prevent is people (like the VT guy) from being able to get semiautomatic pistols with extended capacity cartriges. Last time I check no one used a Glock to kill bambi's mom.
to editor#3
You must research your liberal candidates as well. Democratic candidates are just as political. The DAY OF the massacre, Obama gave a speech in which he just had to mention fuel standards, healthcare, and GLOBAL WARMING...why does he get a pass?
"No Democratic candidate used this awful event to press for stricter gun laws; they respected the grief of the nation and decided to feel first, and legislate later."
I won't call you a liar, just misinformed. You obviously didn't hear obama's speech....yes he consoled the families, but he didn't leave it at that. He had to bring in his political platform at a time when it was unnecessary, and down right disgusting.
What was Bush's response when asked by Katie Couric about gun control?...That's right, he refused to weigh in, stating that what matters first is the grief and well-being of the survivors and families.....include that in your post. He is the leader of the whole party.
As far as "Caring" for the country, just because Republicans are not in favor of such things as nationwide healthcare doesn't mean they do not care....there are just differing views on the role of the government.
Alter ego,
First, I'm sure you've never made a typo in your life because you're perfect right? Owning a gun might be a freedom, but then one might argue, on the same logic, that we should all have access to designer drugs, 420mm tank cannons, and nuclear weapons. Bottom line: guns kill people, that is what they're made to do. Gun control was instated to prevent people from killing each other, but clearly it has failed so far. Why don't you stop thinking partisan and start thinking about how you would feel about gun control if you had been shot and wounded in the Virginia Shooting?
As for the East LA father who wants a gun for protection, who is he to judge who gets to live and who gets to die? We have a police force so that citizens don't take matters into their own hands. Or perhaps you envision a world in which the streets are ruled by gangs and every day your existence is plagued by the sounds of gunfire and crying mothers.
As far as dildos are concerned, I have not yet found a way to easily murder someone with dildo...
Twisted...
gonna hijack here.
You kinda set yourself up here. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun can't think. I can't speak for ego, but if I had been shot or wounded, I'd be pissed that VT was a "gun free zone" and nobody would have been allowed to shoot back. By the way, VT was a "gun free zone", did cho obey that gun law? Checkmate.
The East LA dad is the judge. If somebody breaks into your house, armed, ready to kill, you have every right to be the judge, jury, and executioner. Go ahead and call the police, and even with quick response times, you're dead.
In a matter of life and death, time is crucial...every second counts. Who is in charge when the police are not around? I know, the person with the gun. Hopefully that person is the law abiding citizen.....LAPD is sorely undermanned, as is most agencies in CA...
Anyhow, I know you weren't asking me anyway:)
1. That why we need stricter gun control, to ensure that "gun free zones" truly are "gun free zones"
2.You're only dead if your assailant has a weapon... (think abou it)
Sure, both guys have guns they're both dead. Both guys have knives or better yet, fists, the least they can do is injure each other, know each other out. You can run from someone with a knife, you can't run from a man with a gun.
Take another situtation. Bob has a grudge against Bill and buys a gun to settle the beef. Bob sees a man he thinks is bill walking down the street at night and quickly fires off three rounds. He smirks as he walks towards the fallen corpse. "Take that, you fucking wife-pilferer!" he yells as he walks up. As he sees the man's face, he shrieks as he sees not Bill, but his neighbor John, gone out for a late night walk. Bob quickly turns and disappears into the night. John's wife and children are devastated. Bob is convicted and sent to prison and his wife kills herself in shame. Not at all a happy ending.
However, had bob not had a gun and a fistfight had ensued, it is very likely that Bob would have recognized john long before he killed him. Everyone lives happily ever after.
The list goes on... Guns help people kill people more quickly, cleanly, and easily.
Not everyone can be expected to show the judgement required to handle a gun, and yet these people are given guns, resulting in events like colombine and virginia. Leave the killing, if its even necessary, to trained professionals.
hate to hop on the bandwagon here twisted satire, but your points and responses are pretty weak.
"alter ego" said that fathers in bad neighborhoods should have the right to have guns to protect there families, and your response was "why does the father get to choose who lives and dies" and "thats what the police force is for"...
i am sorry,
but that is ridiculous, and you need to step back. away from your parents influence, and your sheltered liberal opinions, and think about where you stand.
not to get mean,
but honestly,
your pride and stubborness is getting in the way.
The premise of all your arguments are that if guns somehow cease to exist, everything will be ok....that is mere theory as it is impossible, and will NEVER happen. The US could have the ultimate gun control and ban them tommorrow, yet how they heck are they going to get 250 million+ weapons off the street? The black market will always be around....people like cho will always have access to guns.
Thus, the argument is moot....but interesting.
1. Stricter? You could have banned them, and Cho still would have obtained one.
2. Not if you shoot first.
I like your example :) Extremely rare. I also like how you know exactly how bob's wife will react! This whole idea that IF bob didn't have a gun is illogical. IF he couldn't have obtained one at a store, he would have found one on the black market or brought one over from mexico...the point is if he really wanted one, he would have gotten one, as simple as that.
Unfortunately for you, our country is based on protected freedoms. and yes, I agree there are idiots out there, but we must give the people the freedom's they are entitled to. Not everyone has good judgement, unfortunately, and it is not against the law to be an idiot.
Again, the trained professionals are not always around. thus,the law abiding citizen without a gun will be the victim.
why do people have to go through extensive training to be able to drive a vehicle without killing people, who's sole purpose is not to take lives but rather to get you from one place to another, while with a simple background check (or sometimes none at all) you can purchase a gun with no training at all, who's sole purpose IS to kill people? wouldn't you be more likely to miss or shoot someone uneccessarily? they say most highly trained police officers never use their guns.
Extensive training? Driver's ed is a couple of hours here and there and a simple test....but i get your point.
Where there is no background check you are buying a gun illegally. At least in CA, you need a check. Training? Not a bad idea for a prerequisite. A gun is always used to kill people, many buy for sport and hunting.
Those highly trained officers never use their guns because they've yet to be in that situation yet.....
Moreover, the reason why they don't use their guns is because they draw, aim, and most of the time the criminal has enough sense to drop his/her weapon, and get on the ground.....thus, had the officer not had a gun the situation would be opposite.
In response to anonymous (that feels odd to say), I meant that McCain used the occasion to express his beliefs on gun control, which I find to be morally reprehensible, although to his credit, I am now of the understanding that at the time of his comments, he was unaware of the details of the shooting. In response to your point, Obama is in the midst of a Presidential campaign, and like all the other candidates, did not cancel his scheduled events for the day, although he did reschedule a hugley significant speech to Monday 4/23 from its original date of 4/17 out of respect for the families who lost someone. Also, it is totally different to discuss your platform than to discuss the issues pertaining to an extremely recent tragedy. this week was not the time to discuss gun control laws, but discussing the incident and other political buisness is okay by me as long as its handeled sensitively. Lastly, it bugs me that this became a liberal-conservative bashing thread. I don't care what you believe, lets not use this discussion to spread hate of any kind. We'll post any thoughts you guys have, and we can start a separate thread, but lets use this one to try and remember what we all have in common. On this topic at least, let's respect differences in beliefs, out of respect for those who know what casual hatred can grow into.
Well ok...but the presidential election, republican AND democrat can wait a day or two. The past couple of days was not the time for things like Global Warming, I think that can wait a day. Moreover, reps. and dems. have a long way to go to have their little speeches. This thread is about gun control :)
Right, and my comment remains that McCain disgraced himself by turning this into a jumping-off point to talk about gun control. If I recall correctly, you then complained that Obama didn't stop talking about global warming. I responded that that's not the issue. "There little speeches" are going to determine what kind of country we live in as adults, and what kind of America we leave to our kids. If Obama had tried to push his opinions on gun control the day after the shooting, I would have been equally disgusted with him. Global warming, not so much...
Splitting hairs I guess...politics is politics in my book. After an event like this, stances on hot topic issues should be put aside. Gun control, Healtcare, global warming....wait a day or two
"Those little speeches" mean shit for those who are dead and mourning...the speeches can wait a couple of days. They'll have many, many days until the next election to give speeches on issues.
Regardless of who shoots first, someone always dies.
I'm just gonna post as Ilan for now...seems more egalitarian. Look, I basically agree with you, but global warming didn't kill 33 people that day. Guns did. So its less tasteful to play politics with guns because it involves the tragedy directly. I'm not going to argue back and forth; I think you're more or less right. But I do believe there is a distinction between talking about your support for easy gun access the day of/after a shooting and talking about your opposition to carbon dioxide. All I'm gonna say for now.
Twisted...
If it is the criminal with no respect for your life, and will kill you without thinking twice........good riddance.
That's not your judgement to make.
It absolutely is....if somebody has a gun in my face, is about to take my life for no reason, make me a victim......I have EVERY RIGHT to SELF DEFENSE. I can kill and be justified in the eyes of the law.
you make a good point. I think this might have gotten a little bit out of hand. I'm just going to restate what I was trying to say in the beggining. That is that since our constitution was written, we have outgrown the need for a people's militia, and since the second amendment was written to that effect, we should perhaps revisit it and whether it is still necessary that it be so broadly defined and interpreted.
First of all, no one has ever seriously talked about taking guns away entirely. The issue is the widespread availibility of guns that have no legitimate use-- we're talking automatic weapons, the pistols with extended magazines the VT guy used, etc.
For all of you Second Ammendment lovers out there, I'd just like to ask you a question. Do you support my right to carry around a Nuclear missile? If I remember from my history class, those are generally considered arms. So unless you think that there should be NO laws, we should agree that at some point the Constitution no longer protects my right to bear arms.
I, and most gun-control advocates, feel that this line should be drawn to encompass not just nukes, RPGs, and machine guns but most guns without a legitimate purpose.
I do believe you having a nuke is illegal, as possession of radioactive material without permission is against the law...but I get your point.
The issue is really a state one, not federal. Not every state allows automatic weapons (uzi, AK, Tech 9, etc, banana clips, rpgs, etc....Case in point, our state. In CA it is against the law to carry a concealed weapon and have automatic weapons. Other states differ.
As you see we have interpreted the 2nd amendment just like all the other amendments.
The crux is that the definitioin of "arms" is loose at best. Moreover, who are you to determine: 1. what is a "legitimate purpose"; and 2. What I choose to own as a citizen and member of a free society. Who decides the standards?
If it is the Fed. gov....then they have already set the standard many times. States? Same thing...what more do you want?
Yes, they've set the standard, and that seems to work, at least for the weapons that are banned. Last time I checked, no one in Santa Monica carried around an RPG (rocket propelled grenade). Maybe if we expanded that ban and those laws to the everyday rapid fire guns and the cop killer bullets they are loaded with we might see those disappear as well.
Yes, and to bring it all back to the central issue...Those items are banned (AK, M16, RPG,etc.) YET, whenever there is a house raid on a gangmembers house, or a thug is pulled over.....many times they are caught with AK-47s, UZis, and many other banned weapons.
thus, this serves to prove my point. Those items will never disappear....all that will happen is they will be pushed to the black market, making them just as easy to get. sure they won't be at Big 5, but again, if a criminal wants that gun they will get it.
Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws. More gun control will not make society better, nor could it have prevented the VT massacre.
Actually, Cho bought his guns legally.
The reason that our current gun laws are so innefective is that there are no real punishments. We have a Court system that is geared toward the defendant, where sentences are routinely aregued down.
If there was a mandatory jail time associated with posession of an illegal fire arm, like 3-4 years, i sincerely doubt there would be as many cases of them out of the street.
i seriously think your wrong.
its not that simple.
courts and jail don't scare people that carry illegal guns...
why do you think we have a problem with gangs.
...because our jail sentences are too levitous when it comes to gun posession, drug trade and other illegal activities that gangs take part in.
I will agree with you on that....I am all in favor of mandatory sentences. I find it odd that people like snoop dogg can get caught carrying an illegal weapon at an airport, then is on the street the next day. Send a message. If I had an illegal "gat" on me and I tried to board American Airlines, I'd get arrested. That is a felony, especially if it is illegal.......
Throw the book at all of them.
would that we had the assets to run our country properly and the wisdom to do so before venturing to manipulate the infracstructure of others.
The right to own a gun should not be stripped; the types of guns available for purchase should be changed though. Handguns are unnecesary in any circumstance. You cannot hunt with one, which is the only reason I condone the right to bear arms. Claiming it is for protection is suspect at best; more accidents happen with guns than real uses of defense. As bad as this may sound, if the Va Tech shooter would have had a hunting rifle fewer people would have died due to the increased reloading time as well as the inability to conceal it. That may sound harsh, as life cannot be simply looked in terms of numbers; but the tragedy may have not happened, or it would have not been as bad. In addition to limiting the types of guns available, the process of purchasing a gun should be much more strict than it is. There should be a law that states that psychologically impaired people should not be allowed to own a firearm. This deplorable act has much more to it than gun problems, but it should be the catalyst for legislation and change.
Not to mention that there is very little reason to own a hunting weapon in the urban ares that play host to most gun violence
Jay...
"more accidents happen with guns than real uses of defense"
In order for this statement to be true, you would have to know how many times in a given year (or other standard) that guns were used in self-defense. I'm curious as to the number of times guns are used in self-defense in the USA? I merely disagree with this statement, because I have read otherwise.
IF the shooter didn't have access to hand-guns....again, the same argument based more on pie-in-the-sky suppositions. That is impossible, as he would have obtained one illegally. When it comes to the gun itself, this tragedy was unavoidable, as guns were not the culprit but a nutcase.
What could have stopped this was not the gun, but as you say, psychological reporting. I agree wholeheartedly that those deemed a danger to themselves and/or society should not be allowed easy access to weapons....would that have stopped the VT shooting from happening? Probably not, but it would have made things more difficult and at least we know our system will deny guns to many and do its part.
Anonymous...
You would have a tough time selling that argument to many gun owners...I live in the city and like to shoot. Does that mean I'm not allowed to own a rifle? What about those who like to hunt but don't live in the country? They are citizens and still have right.
Anonymous- I agree that the problem does not mainly come from guns, as I stated in the last sentance, but the controlling of guns would have an impact. If he had been denied the purchase of a gun and the school had been alerted of his attempt, many actions could have been made to aid him. I might have just pulled the defense stuff out of my ass, but the chance of using a gun for defense is slim. These things happen from time to time and it's almost impossible to know who wants to do this, or when they will do it; but there are things that could stop actions like this. As for the second reply, I believe people should be allowed to own rifles. I never stated that I believe rifles should be unavailable to those who are able to purchase weapons, besides those deemed hazardous to others. If you like to hunt, but dont live in the country, either go hunting when you can or rent a handgun from a shooting gallery. That seems resonable to me.
Yeah, I understand. I just don't think the VT shooting, and events like this can be avoided....
unfortunately, and I don't mean to be sadistic by any means, somethings can not be prevented. Nothing can stop a person with the desire to harm others...Unless that person is incarcerated, nothing will work. When somebody is a nutcase they will go to any extreme to achieve their goal. In this case he would have obtained a gun illegally.
The only option is to allow concealed weapons. This could have been prevented, not because of more gun control, but because people should allowed to be armed.
Case after case go by where a gunman opens fire in a crowded place only to be stopped, either killed or at gunpoint, by a person armed with a weapon. Remember that mall shooting last year? That was stopped by an off-duty cop that had a gun....imagine if somebody had a weapon at VT?....
Rent a gun? Why, the 2nd amendment applies to me too...
The 2nd Ammendment is outdated. It had militias, which largely comprised the Continental Army at the time, in mind. Those people were truly frightened that they would have to defend themselves from the British, Natives, or others that posed a threat. That same threat does not exist now, except from other dangerous people who have guns. Most people who have guns arent dangerous, something like 99.8% of guns are never used or associated with crime, but those that are influence a disproportionate amount of people to buy guns. Those that buy guns out of fear then use the 2nd Ammendmet as a rationale. If the U.S. was really serious about gun control, they would crack down on illegal firearms. The same goes for drugs; but neither of these domestic wars will ever be won because of the economic impact they have. Also, allowing concealed weapons is not necessarily a good idea. Knowing that anyone around me could be carrying a gun is not reassuring. Normal fights would become deadly, drunk people would do more damage than they already do, and fear although a possible deterent would still ravage many people. There is no easy answer for this question or anything about the Virginia Tech shooting. There is never a right or wrong answer regarding such a passionate topic; this an issue which has been debated for a long time and will continue to be debated for a long time. Each side has points, some suspect, some very valid, but in the end one side will win out and some will be angry while others rejoice. This argument is just history repeating itself, as this story illustrates in many respects.
Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree,as the 2nd amendment is not outdated in my eyes.
As far as the whole idea that if people have concealed weapons, somehow "fights become deadly", and everybody will be walking around with a gun....pure paranoia. States with concealed weapon laws show no real significant increase in homicide rates. In fact, los angeles, in a state that doesn't allow concealed weapons, has a pretty high murder rate.
You're right, it boils down to what each person feels is the best answer, and some may not like the result.
I just believe that if anybody is going to have a gun, it should be the citizen and not the crook.
The second amendment is in our constitution and people use this fact to defend they're right to own guns. However, the second amendment wasn't put in there for freedom's sake, it was put in there for the purpose of having a standing militia. Perhaps now it serves to endow our citizens with the freedom to kill each other more easily, but I'm sick of hearing the second amendment used in relation to freedom and the ideals of America.
God bless America...I respect your opinion. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled on this countless times, and it has disagreed with you. It is a right protected by our bill of right.
Sorry you're sick of hearing that, but it sometimes hurts to face the truth
Well slavery and women not voting was in the Constitution originally, and they got changed... why not guns?
Comparing apples to oranges.
Slavery was never part of our Bill of Rights.
Neither was the right to deny women the right to vote in our bill of rights.
Those isssues were changed because both groups were discriminated against.....
The 2nd amendment does not discriminate against anybody. Rather it protects a freedom given us in the Bill of Rights.
nobody, unless you count people who want to live.
Actually, it could be Constitutionally argued that slavery IS protected in the Bill of Rights. I refer you to the last amendments 9+10, where anything not previously covered in the rest of the Constitution becomes the right of the people or of states. Slavery technically falls into that.
Fortunately, that didn't stop some guy named Lincoln to finally getting around to fixing this little slip up. They're called Ammendments because they're there to change things, and ergo can be changed.
No, slavery is not protected. The tenth amendment does leave open for each state to interpret, but certainly doesn't protect slavery as a right.
The mere premise of your argument is moot. none of the bill of rights were amended as a result of Lincoln, the civil war, or anything. The First ten amendments remain intact. What happened was that amendments were ADDED.
Lincoln did not touch the First ten amendments, at least to my knowledge. He had other amendments added. thus your argument that amendments were changed in relation to slavery is invalid.
No, the argument is perfectly valid. The 10 Amendments are not meant to be viewed as a seperate entity than the rest of the constitution; they are Amendments and therefore carry are as much a part of the Constitution as, say, the Commerce Clause.
Because they are part of the Constitution, you can't seperate a change to the Constitution from a change to the Amendments as the Amendments are actually part of the Constitution.
So unless you want to argue that the Amendments are somehow worth LESS than the rest of the Constitution, there isn't a difference between Lincoln being able to change the Constitution to edit out slavery and our ability to edit the Constitution so there aren't any more uzis on the market.
And, if you deem the Amendments as less worthy of respect than the rest of the Constitution, there is nothing to make them so sacrosanct we can't alter them to save thousands of lives.
Nobody is viewing the amendments as separate. Of course they are part of the Constitution, and nobody said otherwise.
As to what you say about the Amendments being worth less, I have no idea where that came from...
The point I was making was that Lincoln did not alter the first ten amendments. Yes, he altered the overall constitution by ADDING another amendment, but the bill of rights were not altered.
You are right, UZIs can be banned from the market (which, by the way, won't make them any less available to the criminal element)but not by doing away with our 2nd amendment, but by ADDING another amendment.
Again, the 2nd amendment has been interpreted by the courts already, and from where I stand it isn't going anywhere anytime soon...
Nice try, but I do not deem the amendments as worthy of less respect. Lets not forget, I'm not the one trying to deprive the American people of their 2nd amendment rights :)
Are you saying that the first ten amendments deserve extra respect because they were first? They are all in the same constitution, and prohibiting slavery is no more prominent than allowing the possesion of firearms. We're not trying deprive people of their second amendment rights. If the second amendment were repealed, then we wouldn't be depriving people of their second amendment rights, because it would no longer be a right.
No. Please re-read what I wrote. If I wanted to say that I would have. I didn't even infer it....
Who the hell said the 10 amendments were separate?
AGAIN, the point is that by prohibiting slavery, none of the 10 amendments were altered. Understand?
Previously people were talking about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Now you are talking about repaling it. 2 separate issues.
Repeal the 2nd amendment if "you" want to ban guns. Then and only then will it no longer be a right.(Which won't solve the issue of crinimals having guns anywyas...)
Until I see the Constitutional amendment process in full-swing, stay away from my right to bear arms!!!!!!!!!!
You are saying the the first 10 Amendments are different than the rest. We are saying that they are just the same. Glad you've changed your mind!
Since we all agree that they're the same, it doesn't matter that banning slavery didn't alter the 10 Amendments as THEY ARE THE SAME as the rest of the Constitution.
Glad we cleared that up. Moving on...
I never said they were different. Please re-read my posts as I never stated, "The 10 amendments are completely different than the constitution." don't remember saying that...
My mind didn't change as I have been saying the same thing the whole time.
Thank you for agreeing with me, in that Lincoln added to the constitution, and our Bill of Rights are stil intact!!
Well technically they are different, as every amendment is about something different...
Move on, yes...I believe we are now quibbling over semantics.
Back to the issue, what the hell was it? Oh yes, guns and gun control.....
Picked up the paper this morning and I didn't see a congressional movement to amend the constitution with a ban on all weapons:)God Bless our second amendment!!!!!
Of course no one is trying to ban all weapons. That would be pointless and un-American. What people are trying to ban are the weapons that are used to commit the vast majority of crimes: easily hidden automatic weapons with lots of bullets. Looking back on the discussion, as you so nicely asked me to do, I found no mention of anything about a retraction of the Second Amendment except in your posts. What I found were well thought out pleas for an end to the madness that lets an insane man like the VT shooter purchase deadly weapons that serve no legitimate purpose in society.
You, on the other hand, seem to live in a fear that your shotgun will be taken away and you will no longer be allowed to hunt. Don't worry-- as long as you aren't killing seagulls with something the Vietcong would have found useful, I think you'll find that no one is trying to take it away.
PS- If you want to have this Constitution argument at some other time, let me know. This isn't the place, but my AIM s/n is Aetious2 in case you're interested in continuing.
"I found no mention of anything about a retraction of the Second Amendment except in your posts"
Actually Zero Hour did, which I then felt compelled to address as he/she took my comments out of context when Zero Hour said this:
"If the second amendment were repealed, then we wouldn't be depriving people of their second amendment rights, because it would no longer be a right"
He/she was clearly missing my point...
Anyhow, again, your definition of a "legitimate purpose" differs from mine. So, who makes the call? I believe the Supreme Court does, and has. Furthermore, banning automatic weapons would not have stopped the VT massacre
Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
"You, on the other hand, seem to live in a fear that your shotgun will be taken away and you will no longer be allowed to hunt."
LOL. Fear, no way. I know there is no way guns will ever be banned. On the contrary, I live in relative peace and harmony knowing:
1. the Second amendment isn't going anywhere, and
2. I will not be a victim in my own home.
You liberals are the ones in fear. The fear of guns!!
Um... Zero Hour's post is a RESPONSE to your post about the removal of the Second Amendment.
Also, saying that criminals can always find access to guns doesn't justify making it easier. Let's say we're discussing something else, say, murder.
Just because people are always going to kill people doesn't mean we should make it legal to do so. The point of the law is to discourage and punish.
Just because a criminal can get a gun doesn't mean we sould hand criminals as many guns as they want.
Just because you value your right to have a gun more than the right of others to a safe life doesn't mean that the rest of us should be tacit accomplices in the deaths of the almost 50 Americans who will die by gunfire in the next 24 hours.
So don't let your fear of not being able to enforce a law serve as your rationale for not making one. As a country e have the power to save lives. That is a power that we need to use.
Uh, yeah, the word "removal" is nowhere in the post Zero Hour was responding too....and to the point, what I was pointing out was that nowhere did I state the bill of rights were separate from the Constitution. Never said, nor implied it....
I'm with you on not legally allowing criminals and crazy people to have guns...we agree. Make it harder to get, I agree.
Murder isn't protected in the Bill of Rights so the analogy is invalid.
Again, I never said criminals should be allowed to own a weapon.
"Just because you value your right to have a gun more than the right of others to a safe life doesn't mean that the rest of us should be tacit accomplices..."
Unfair and illogical comparison. Because I value the 2nd amendment means I don't want people to have a safe life? Wrong. It is because I favor the 2nd amendment that I want people to be safe...
"....in the deaths of the almost 50 Americans who will die by gunfire in the next 24 hours."
Ah, die by "gunfire"? Are all of those "innocent" people? Who is included in that stat?
If it is gunfire from a police killing a criminal, a drug deal gone bad, who the hell cares? One less criminal on the street, one less chance you and I will be victims.
You give that stat, but how many people will be SAVED by the possession/brandisishing, or shooting of a weapon? How many lives will be saved by defensive use of guns?
That stat always seems to conveniently get left out:)
One less bullet flying in a drug deal, one less person doing a drive by, one less bullet killing an innocent bystander like Eddie Lopez. Don't kid yourself that gun violence doesn't effect us all.
Also, only one out of the 48 daily deaths by gunfire in the United States is by "legitimate use of force by Law Enforcement Offciers"
But to your points, you did imply that the Bill of RIghs is seperate from the rest of the Constitution. Otherwise it wouldn't matter that Lincoln only affected the rest of it and not the Bill. I can't see how you can keep arguing that one...
Also, your claim that there is now point in regulating guns as criminals will always get them IS analogous to murder. Just because criminals will always murder doesnt mean that we should throw up our hands and say that we can't be bothered to legislate against it.
"One less bullett..."
Can you honestly sit there and believe that gun control would have prevented the death of Eddie Lopez? Those were GANGMEMBERS! How often do gangmembers buy a gun legally?! Gun violence does effect us...but so does protecting oursevles.
1 out of 48 deaths by a LEO? How many are a result of criminal behavior?
Again, any reason you fail to mention how many times guns save lives and prevent crime? :)
Or does that not fit into your agenda?
No, I never implied the Bill of rights were separate. I can't see how easy it is to understand. Our bill of rights remained the same before the civil war, and after.....seems like a no brainer.
"...your claim that there is now point in regulating guns as criminals will always get them IS analogous to murder."
I am in favor of gun control, and agree with you on keeping it.. when the hell did I say there is no point in regulating? I have always said that gun control will make it harder for criminals to get the guns, but they will get them nonetheless. Never did I say that there is not point in regulation...
I really like this site, as it is a great way to voice opinions. But I can't keep getting misquoted, and having words put into my mouth. I never claimed there is no point in regulation, in fact, I am in favor of it. It gets frustrating, and more so when its an ed....
Who said throw up our hands? My overall, major point is to go ahead and regulate. make training mandatory even. Great. gun locks mandatory? Great. Allow psych. hospitals to report to the FBI dangers to society? Great.
Just don't make the mistake of believing that gun control would have prevented the VT massacre, and Eddie Lopez. Extremely naive and dangerous....
1. Gangmembers will find a way to get weapons as they don't buy them legally in the first place.
2. If somebody wants a gun, they will get one.
I'M NOT SAYING TO NOT REGULATE, just keep those two points in mind as you regulate to give yourself a false sense of security.
If guns were more regulated, I sure as hell wouldn't feel any safer....don't know about you.
Well if you think that gun control is good, then I'm glad. I was under the impression that that was what I had been arguing. It's good to see we're in agreement here.
And, yes, I would feel safer knowing it was harder for someone to get a gun.
As for your other complaints about misquotations and the Constitution, let me once again invite you to discuss them with me in a more appropriate place. this is about gun control, not Constitutional semantics. My s/n, again, is Aetious2. You're more than welcome to discuss this with me there, but this isn't the place.
An agreement alas! (Just keep your paws of my guns.)
Hey, as long as it isn't a handgun, uzi, or other assault weapon, I'm fine to let you have it. It is, after all, your American freedom to go shoot the hell out of a couple seagulls.
Although the REAL way to do it would be with a bow. And like I've always said, if someone wants to kill me enough to use a bow, I'll buy them a drink out of respect becuase that is just badass as fuck.
Well a handgun isn't an assault weapon...so we disagree again. it was a short lived marriage.
Post a Comment