Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

[billvon 2,991]

>OTOH, if you're lower income, or if your boyfriend is threatening to kill you, these
>obstructions seem a bit more ominous.

Indeed. It might even force a woman to go to the police instead of killing her boyfriend. And wouldn't that be a tragedy.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Perhaps at one point, but if you think about it realistically, that could never happen today. As armed as the US populace is (and it is clearly the most well armed populace on the planet), as long as the government has the military on its side, the populace could never successfully rise up against it through use of force.

then the 2nd ammendment is rendered useless.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps at one point, but if you think about it realistically, that could never happen today. As armed as the US populace is (and it is clearly the most well armed populace on the planet), as long as the government has the military on its side, the populace could never successfully rise up against it through use of force.

But if that was the original intention and the original intention isn't possible anymore, shouldn't the amendmend be abolished?

Technically, any part of the Constitution, including any of its amendments, can be abolished by subsequent amendments. It's already happened in history. None of the first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) have ever been abolished (or changed...I think...as best as I can recall...), but it is technically possible to do so. The amendment process is, by design, pretty difficult and cumbersome, in order to assure that a super-majority of US citizens really, truly want to ratify the proposed amendment.

Now as to whether the 2nd Amendment should be abolished, well, that's one facet of the ongoing national debate: to what extent do we want, or not want, our citizenry to have the right to be armed?

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Indeed. It might even force a woman to go to the police instead of killing her boyfriend. And wouldn't that be a tragedy.

So they can give the dude a restraining order? Do you ever watch some of the courtTV specials on women who've been murdered because the justice system failed to lock up their pshyco ex-boyfriends. Its not gonna do much good to call the police when you're homicidal ex-boyfriend decides to come kill you. I watched one recently where the dude violated the restraining order twice, and while waiting "x amount" of days for his trial, tracked this girl down over 1000 miles away and shot her in the head while she was on the phone with the 911 operator.

Seriously, I don't have the stats to refute this, but do you think more women kill their boyfriends over a death threat than get killed by their stalking ex-lovers.

We don't see eye to eye very much and I find myself agreeing with your posts more and more, but Oh man Bill, you lost me on this one. Bad post! Bad bad post!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>OTOH, if you're lower income, or if your boyfriend is threatening to kill you, these
>obstructions seem a bit more ominous.

Indeed. It might even force a woman to go to the police instead of killing her boyfriend. And wouldn't that be a tragedy.

you mean when they tell her - we can't do anything until he does something? Which is somewhat justified - the police can't arrest every guy that an angry girlfriend calls in about. But it also means they're at the mercy of 911 response time, which sucks, and often does end in tragedy.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

You also assume that the military would, as a whole, agree to fight their own people.

Why not? They did at Kent State. The police did at Orangeburg and Jacksonville. The FBI and ATF did at Waco.

Have you ever heard of members the military (or other government agencies) refusing to be deployed against US citizens?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,991]

>Its not gonna do much good to call the police when you're homicidal
>ex-boyfriend decides to come kill you.

I'd argue that it's much better to do that than to run to a store and purchase a gun you have no idea how to use.

A college friend (who will remain nameless for obvious reasons) seemed to end up associated with crazy women. They tended to have even crazier ex-es who would threaten and bluster when they broke up (although they often seemed to end up back together again.)

Twice it got serious enough that he thought there would actually be violence. In those two cases, he lent the woman a gun after showing her how to use it. The "showing her how to use it" part was the critical part, and it is the part that you absolutely cannot skip - no matter how scared you are.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I'd argue that it's much better to do that than to run to a store and purchase a gun you have no idea how to use.

Well, I didn't really get that from your first post, but ok, This is why she needs to learn before this ever happens. Still if you know this guy is gonna kill you, and there's nothing the law can do until he at least tries to, then you might as well give it your best shot. No pun intended. It doesn't take but a few minutes to learn how to shoot a gun. Or you can find someone you can stay with that's armed. This one kinda strikes a nerve with me because a girl I personally knew might still be alive if she had a gun in her home. Not expecting anyone to know of that situation, but it just happens far too often. She however made the mistake of never getting a restraining order in the first place and never pressing charges on it being violated. It didn't escalate to the murder overnight. Still sux she wasn't armed though.

[billvon 2,991]

> It doesn't take but a few minutes to learn how to shoot a gun.

Well, say 15 minutes and I'd agree with you. And if any new gun purchaser had to get even that much training, then much of the issue goes away.

>Or you can find someone you can stay with that's armed.

A much better idea.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The amendment process is, by design, pretty difficult and cumbersome, in order to assure that a super-majority of US citizens really, truly want to ratify the proposed amendment.

Sure, but you of all people should understand that it is possible to radically change what the amendment means through case law. That is the problem at hand. Not that the actual amendment would go away, but that case law will prevent the amendment from being applied as it is written, intended or even as how our society sees and applies it today.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

The amendment process is, by design, pretty difficult and cumbersome, in order to assure that a super-majority of US citizens really, truly want to ratify the proposed amendment.

Sure, but you of all people should understand that it is possible to radically change what the amendment means through case law. That is the problem at hand. Not that the actual amendment would go away, but that case law will prevent the amendment from being applied as it is written, intended or even as how our society sees and applies it today.

True enough. I think the toughest part is "as how our society sees and applies it today", because, of course, the country is so massive that there really is no singular vision of The People on this.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

My question was a basic principle question, if that (2nd) amendmend was put in for a specific purpose and that purpose is no longer possible, why keep the amendmend?

You're wrong two ways.

Government takeover was not the only reason the 2nd Amendment was created.

And your assumption that a citizen revolt against the government is no longer possible is incorrect.

[quade 4]

Quote

And your assumption that a citizen revolt against the government is no longer possible is incorrect.

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't possible, just that it would not be successful.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PeregrineFalcon 0]

<<>>

That shows you're a thinker. I can't stand the sheep who agree with everything one politician says or does or agree with any one pundit 100% of the time.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Why not? They did at Kent State. The police did at Orangeburg and Jacksonville. The FBI and ATF did at Waco.

Have you ever heard of members the military (or other government agencies) refusing to be deployed against US citizens?

I don't think that would happen on a large scale over a long period of time. When it affects EVERYONE, these soldiers have families that they won't want treated that way.

I have heard members of law enforcement say that they would refuse orders that they felt violated the constitution. Specifically the 2nd amendment.

Oh, hello again!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why should we consider the 2nd amendment to be less important than any other? Sure it sounds cliche, but if it weren't important to the founders... why'd they put it second?

Aren't the guns in circulation supposed to prevent that from happening? Isn't that the thought process that an armed population could stop a rogue government?

It seems like 'no big thing' to have to get an FOID or register guns, right? Well, NYC and Cali used those lists to confiscate guns. I believe Chicago and DC did the same but am not 100% sure of that.

Now, translate that for other rights. Are you willing to support registration of computers, and testing/licensing to use it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Straight from his website:

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them.

Now, go look at his VOTING RECORD on the issue - he says one thing but votes another.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

And your assumption that a citizen revolt against the government is no longer possible is incorrect.

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't possible, just that it would not be successful.

You can't say that either. You don't have a magic crystal ball to foresee the future.

The history of civilizations has proven that citizen revolts can sometimes succeed. Not guaranteed to win, of course, but not guaranteed to lose either.

If things ever get so bad in America that the military is turned against the civilian populace, then you won't be able to count on the military remaining loyal to the government.

And there are more military veterans in civilian life, then there are active duty military members.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

My question was a basic principle question, if that amendmend was put in for a specific purpose and that purpose is no longer possible, why keep the amendmend?

Show me that specific purpose in the language of the Amendment and explain why it is no longer valid.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>OTOH, if you're lower income, or if your boyfriend is threatening to kill you, these
>obstructions seem a bit more ominous.

Indeed. It might even force a woman to go to the police instead of killing her boyfriend. And wouldn't that be a tragedy.

Yeah, that restraining order works wonders, doesn't it?

*as always, picture courtesy of Oleg Volk*

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[piper17 1]

Way too many times the police do little or nothing...except clean up the crime scene after the boyfriend kills his ex because he ignored the restraining order.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[Basjkall 0]

When was your constitution made again? And colored by what kind of political climate? How was this nation built and united? After how many wars nad guns and shit? Could your forfathers have a different and more realistic view on wearing arms and protecting themselfs?? Things change after 200 years.. (Well obviosly not..)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Things change after 200 years.. (Well obviosly not..)

So why don't you enlighten us on your absolutely crime-free, gun-free country, then - that is, if you have the stones to actually admit where you live.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Trent 0]

Quote

When was your constitution made again? And colored by what kind of political climate? How was this nation built and united? After how many wars nad guns and shit? Could your forfathers have a different and more realistic view on wearing arms and protecting themselfs?? Things change after 200 years.. (Well obviosly not..)

Clearly we should get rid of the rest of the rights and submit all authority to the UN. After all, this whole freedom of speech thing can be deleterious to "progress". Hell, so can the whole 4th amendment thing... you know, there's TERRORISTS out there!! Hmmm, what else is outdated....

Don't be jealous that you can't pack heat wherever you are!

Oh, hello again!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

When was your constitution made again? And colored by what kind of political climate? How was this nation built and united? After how many wars nad guns and shit? Could your forfathers have a different and more realistic view on wearing arms and protecting themselfs?? Things change after 200 years.. (Well obviosly not..)

The principles of freedom remain constant.

If Americans wanted to change their Constitution, they have a process for doing so. They have not seen fit to change the basic principles of freedom.