Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Interpret it however you want d-usa.

BTW. I still have my guns and NO, you cannot have them.

You say you support the constitution.

The constitution includes a provision that details how it can legally be changed.

You say that if the constitutional provision is utilized and the constitution is changed in a legal way you will no longer suppport the constitution.

You can't support it and then throw a fit if it is used.

And I don't want your guns, I got my own.

I believe the reasoning behind this attitude is that the Constitution is the great restrainer against Government tyranny and as soon as it supports rights being taken away then it's null and void since it failed it's original purpose. Of course, legally speaking this makes no sense but I can see where people are coming from.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I believe the reasoning behind this attitude is that the Constitution is the great restrainer against Government tyranny and as soon as it supports rights being taken away then it's null and void since it failed it's original purpose. Of course, legally speaking this makes no sense but I can see where people are coming from.

Well, I think this attitude definitely holds true for the Bill of Rights, as opposed to the entire Constitution. I also believe that changing/getting rid of the 2nd will have VERY MUCH the same effect as prohibition of alcohol did.


As it stands, I currently support the constitution, however, should things change and make me an outlaw, then obviously I will have to relocate somewhere friendly to me, or hide whatever it is that is now illegal

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I believe the reasoning behind this attitude is that the Constitution is the great restrainer against Government tyranny and as soon as it supports rights being taken away then it's null and void since it failed it's original purpose. Of course, legally speaking this makes no sense but I can see where people are coming from.

Well, I think this attitude definitely holds true for the Bill of Rights, as opposed to the entire Constitution. I also believe that changing/getting rid of the 2nd will have VERY MUCH the same effect as prohibition of alcohol did.


As it stands, I currently support the constitution, however, should things change and make me an outlaw, then obviously I will have to relocate somewhere friendly to me, or hide whatever it is that is now illegal

Yes to both of those. Thanks gents for stating in a manner that d-usa can understand.

So you like and support laws that happen to be in the constitution, not the constitution itself.

It's not really rocket science.

d-usa

If you have not got it by now, I fear you never will.

If you support the constitution then you also support the constitutional mechanisms for change and the subsequent changes that result.

If you only support laws you like in the constitution, and won't obey laws you done like even if they resulted because of the constitutional process of amending it, then you are not a supporter of the constitution.

It's not really rocket science, even cave-trolls could figure this out.

If you say so.

Let's just say I strongly believe in individual liberty.

Currently, the BoA is the holy grail of individual liberty.

If one of the big ten were to be done away with, it is my belief that the constitution and the country will no longer exist in the form it was intended to.

Did you really not understand that?

Maybe I could draw you a picture?

jamesk1973 wrote:
If you say so.

Let's just say I strongly believe in individual liberty.

Currently, the BoA is the holy grail of individual liberty.

If one of the big ten were to be done away with, it is my belief that the constitution and the country will no longer exist in the form it was intended to.

Except that the Constitution was meant to be an organic document, and it even includes the mechanism for changing it. That is the way it was intended to exist.

You are throwing a fit and go "this document and everything in it is the guiding block for this country, it wouldn't exist if this document was not followed. Everything in here is exactly the way this country should always be run and the guys really knew what they were doing. Except for when they also made sure that we could change the constitution if we ever needed to. Then feth those guys and this document. I wants to have my guns!"

Quite a few of the framers made the argument that the Bill or Rights was a very bad idea since it changed the fundamental nature of the Constitution. But it's in the Constitution, so we should follow them.

Did you really not understand that?

You don't like 2nd Amendment because it is in the Constitution.

You like the Constitution because it has the 2nd Amendment in it.

It's a pretty easy distinction and it is exactly what your own actions and statements in this thread are saying.

Maybe I could draw you a picture?

I hope it's a finger painting.

d-usa, I agree with the principle of the constitution. However, I believe that the mechanisms provided by the 2nd Amendment are there to protect "We the People" from a tyrranic situation. Perhaps someday we'll end up in a situation like what we see in Star Trek, TNG and no one will need guns (or phasers, etc., even though Picard has some pistols that we can occasionally see in his quarters, but they are clearly for decorative purposes), then sure, maybe I'd be fine with doing away with the 2nd. But until we reach that Utopian state, we'll have a need to protect ourselves from those who wish us harm.

I think that I would feel just as strongly if suddenly they voted out the 1st amendment (or really any of the first 10, because the first 10 really set the tone for the rest of them)

I don't think it's likely or practical, that's for sure.

 d-usa wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Maybe I could draw you a picture?

I hope it's a finger painting.

I like it.

Since we are talking pretty pictures:

Here is a person that is "Constitution, Feth yeah!":



This person supports the constitution above all. This person also realizes that the constitution is made up of many individual parts, and that the constitution allows for changes to be made. If you make a constitutional amendment to it then it is still the constitution. Adherence and support for the constitution as a whole trumps the support for any single part of it.

Then here is you (Guns, Feth Yeah!):



You like the guns, and you like that the constitution lets you keep guns. Not because constitution, but because guns. Once you remove the part you like you don't really care about the rest.

Pictures are cool!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Posted on phone, so I have no idea if the pictures are huge...

If so just let me know and I will spoiler them.

I think the distinction here is whether you love the Constitution as a document or as a concept. The two are very different ways of looking at it. To most people, the Constitution is the guarantee from the founding fathers that the Government has a line that it can't step over. What the actual paper says is pretty much meaningless since it is just that: A paper. And once the government steps over that line then the Constitution's "guarantee" has been broken and it is pretty much as worthless as the paper it was written on. This is why gun lovers say "Good luck taking my guns" even though the Constitution no longer allows them to keep them.

The other way of looking at the Constitution is as the actual document itself and all of it's contents. In this view a Constitutional right isn't something that can never be taken away since, as d-Usa points out, they could just as easily nullify the bill of rights. This is legally correct view of the document though it isn't quite as rosy as the other.

Also, to play Devil's Advocate, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say you have the right to any particular firearm. It's very vague on it's definition of "Arms" so the SCOTUS could just rule that a ban on firearms doesn't infringe on the 2nd Ammendment since everyone can arm themselves with swords, bows and knives.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Also, to play Devil's Advocate, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say you have the right to any particular firearm. It's very vague on it's definition of "Arms" so the SCOTUS could just rule that a ban on firearms doesn't infringe on the 2nd Ammendment since everyone can arm themselves with swords, bows and knives.

While they technically could, I guess, I'm pretty sure over two hundred years of established legal precedent is going to keep them from doing so.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Also, to play Devil's Advocate, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say you have the right to any particular firearm. It's very vague on it's definition of "Arms" so the SCOTUS could just rule that a ban on firearms doesn't infringe on the 2nd Ammendment since everyone can arm themselves with swords, bows and knives.

While they technically could, I guess, I'm pretty sure over two hundred years of established legal precedent is going to keep them from doing so.

Honestly this vagueness argument is one of the silliest I've seen. There is nothing vague about the word Arms in the context of how it was used when the 2nd Amendment was put in.

Not to mention "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. Arms has a pretty clear definition.

arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

Shall not be infringed. That doesn't mean "Oh, well we can let them have swords, and nothing else, and they can still have 'arms'." Because that is infringing. Pretty damn simple.

 CptJake wrote:
There is nothing vague about the word Arms in the context of how it was used when the 2nd Amendment was put in.

Black powder weapons?

How common were bayonets during the revolution and that definition of arms?

Are they banned now? Or is that a local thing here?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There is nothing vague about the word Arms in the context of how it was used when the 2nd Amendment was put in.

Top of the line military grade weapons?

Yep

 CptJake wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There is nothing vague about the word Arms in the context of how it was used when the 2nd Amendment was put in.

Top of the line military grade weapons?

Yep

Jakes qoute is better. Top of the line military grade weapons were in the hand of the citizenry, in a widespread fashion. Privateers made up the majority of our nations naval might, and do you think those private citizens acted with muskets? Nope.

 djones520 wrote:
Shall not be infringed. That doesn't mean "Oh, well we can let them have swords, and nothing else, and they can still have 'arms'." Because that is infringing. Pretty damn simple.

And yet the court has found consistently that none of our rights are absolute - that when there is a compelling government interest, it can encroach on them; and does, Your right to free speech does not permit you to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and your right to bear arms does not permit you to bear a machine gun, generally*. We can argue about where that line should be, and it's a good argument to have, but it definitely exists.

I personally would have no problem with virtually any weapon being available to the public with increasing levels of licensing and proficiency checks scaling with.... how killy it is, for lack of a better word. I'd also, however, like to see some baseline proficiency required. I know many states already do this.


I think for a lot of these mass shooting events, the availability of firearms was a factor, obviously, but the unchecked mental illness was a more pressing concern. I'd really like to see a push for more outreach and better mental health care in the US; but that's tax dollars. Nonetheless.


*I said generally, before we start arguing about NFA

 Ouze wrote:

but the unchecked mental illness was a more pressing concern. I'd really like to see a push for more outreach and better mental health care in the US; but that's tax dollars. Nonetheless.

I agree with this, and am glad that the military at least, has started taking steps to get rid of the social stigma of seeking mental health help. I also feel that many-most of these events that happen and involve a shooter who is 18 or under, that parenting is one of the biggest factors. I know that media loves to say, "well the shooter played Pac Man, wore Trenchcoats, and listened to Britney Spears' music! We must regulate/ban the video game and music industry!!" When the real problem is in that the parents of the shooter allowed them to sit up in their room, alone 24/7 with no real interaction, playing whatever video games, going onto whatever internet sites they want, etc. (basically the parents have an invisible thing that eats food in their house, which decloaks whenever it needs new food/drink items, or wants something)

 CptJake wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There is nothing vague about the word Arms in the context of how it was used when the 2nd Amendment was put in.

Top of the line military grade weapons?

Yep

Ah, so where would one go to get their own nuclear, chenical and biological weapons?

Is there a waiting period like there is in some states for hand guns, or can I just pay and play?

"Ah, so where would one go to get their own nuclear, chenical and biological weapons? "

Actually you can make several chemical weapons from the cleaners and other compounds found in your average home.

Figuratively, you already possess them.

jamesk1973 wrote:
"Ah, so where would one go to get their own nuclear, chenical and biological weapons? "

Actually you can make several chemical weapons from the cleaners and other compounds found in your average home.

Figuratively, you already possess them.

You could also make gunpowder (or other propellant) from a number of items you can get around the home, so figuratively you alread... oh, wait... DEY TOOK OUR GUNZ!

Ouze has it right. While to a Layman what "Arms" mean is pretty clear the wording could be twisted to mean anything if there is a significant government interest in getting rid of them. People often think of the Constitution has the hard line against Government legislation but to our overlor- I mean democratically elected government they are really just vague guidelines. As George Carlin once said, we have privileges not rights.

 Ouze wrote:

I think for a lot of these mass shooting events, the availability of firearms was a factor, obviously, but the unchecked mental illness was a more pressing concern. I'd really like to see a push for more outreach and better mental health care in the US; but that's tax dollars. Nonetheless.

It's not just tax dollars. Any push for better mental health care would likely be accompanied by a mandate pushing medication/treatment or institutionalizing the mentally ill along with the establishment of a registry of mentally ill individuals who could "potentially be a hazard".
Add to that, how exactly do you make someone go in for mental illness screenings if they do not want to?

Where does the line get drawn between what's "okay" to protect the Second Amendment and what is "okay" for violating an individual's right to privacy?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
As George Carlin once said, we have privileges not rights.

The state merely recognizes your rights, and has never claimed otherwise (to my knowledge).