More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[kallend 2,063]

Yet another:

https://myfox8.com/news/5-dead-including-2-deputies-suspect-suspects-parents-in-watauga-county-after-standoff/

 

 

[gowlerk 2,218]

5 minutes ago, kallend said:

Yet another:

https://myfox8.com/news/5-dead-including-2-deputies-suspect-suspects-parents-in-watauga-county-after-standoff/

 

 

 

[jakee 1,534]

On 3/24/2021 at 4:00 PM, BIGUN said:

We simply cannot and will not fuck with the Bill of Rights. Without it - there would be no free pres, no freedom of religion and most importantly - no civil rights acts.  

You are mistaken. You absolutely can have civil rights acts without the Bill of Rights. Any suggestion otherwise is absurd - the Bill of Rights does not give the government permission to write laws which protect civil rights. It does not stop the government from protecting civil rights beyond the scope of the Bill of Rights.

In reality, the very fact that civil rights acts were necessary means that the Bill of Rights on its own was not capable of protecting civil rights to a satisfactory degree.

[kallend 2,063]

On 3/24/2021 at 11:00 AM, BIGUN said:

We simply cannot and will not fuck with the Bill of Rights. Without it - there would be no free pres, no freedom of religion and most importantly - no civil rights acts.  

Actually the US does not subscribe to all of the rights enshrined in a treaty to which it is signatory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights

 

Americans are seriously mistaken if they believe their Bill of Rights somehow grants exceptional freedoms.

[BIGUN 1,345]

13 minutes ago, kallend said:

Actually the US does not subscribe to all of the rights enshrined in a treaty to which it is signatory:

True and there were RUD's submitted upon ratification. 

Quote

Americans are seriously mistaken if they believe their Bill of Rights somehow grants exceptional freedoms.

Guess I'm not following your point or direction. If every country had a BoR; the ICCPR wouldn't have been developed or exist. 

Or, the Naa Neee Naaa nee we had it first defense. :)

[jakee 1,534]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Guess I'm not following your point or direction. If every country had a BoR; the ICCPR wouldn't have been developed or exist. 

First, that is the exact opposite argument to the one you just made about civil rights acts. Make your mind up.

Second, the ICCPR would have been written with input from many countries without a BoR.

Third, the BoR happily coexisted with slavery for nearly a century. It should be fairly obvious that it's not a magic panacea that immediately makes everything better.

Edited April 30, 2021 by jakee

[BIGUN 1,345]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

Third, the BoR happily coexisted with slavery for nearly a century. It should be fairly obvious that it's not a magic panacea that immediately makes everything better.

And yet, the English Bill of Rights was written in 1689, about 90 years before the Declaration, yet slavery in England didn't end till 35 years before the US for a net capital gain of enjoying slavery 65 years longer than the US. Here. Let me help you down off that soap box. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

And yet, the English Bill of Rights was written in 1689, about 90 years before the Declaration, yet slavery in England didn't end till 35 years before the US for a net capital gain of enjoying slavery 65 years longer than the US. Here. Let me help you down off that soap box. 

While thats all true jakee has a point.

Russia and China also have so called "bills of rights". Its not getting their citizens anywhere.

[BIGUN 1,345]

11 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

While thats all true jakee has a point.

Russia and China also have so called "bills of rights". Its not getting their citizens anywhere.

Russia. China. + BoR. C'mon Phil. 

[kallend 2,063]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

And yet, the English Bill of Rights was written in 1689, about 90 years before the Declaration, yet slavery in England didn't end till 35 years before the US for a net capital gain of enjoying slavery 65 years longer than the US. Here. Let me help you down off that soap box. 

Slavery in England did not exist since Elizabeth 1's time.  You are confusing it with slavery in the colonies and with the transatlantic trade.

[BIGUN 1,345]

13 minutes ago, kallend said:

Slavery in England did not exist since Elizabeth 1's time.  You are confusing it with slavery in the colonies and with the transatlantic trade.

If that's true; then why did England need the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833

[kallend 2,063]

28 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If that's true; then why did England need the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833

Read your history.  The Cartwright decision predated that by hundreds of years.

[BIGUN 1,345]

16 minutes ago, kallend said:

Read your history.  The Cartwright decision predated that by hundreds of years.

Maybe you need to re-read your history. Cartwright, Somerset, etc. all led to England having to formalize the abolition of slavery in 1833. In other words, England talked about it and "hoped" it would cease, but it didn't. 

[gowlerk 2,218]

21 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Maybe you need to re-read your history. Cartwright, Somerset, etc. all led to England having to formalize the abolition of slavery in 1833. In other words, England talked about it and "hoped" it would cease, but it didn't. 

We all should keep in mind that as bad as slavery in the US was, it was merely a subset of the slavery brought to the new world by all the colonial powers. The people of those nations knew it was wrong all along but it brought in a ton of profits and of course the evil that was and still is the church approved for the same reason. The struggle to be free and equal continues to this day.

[BIGUN 1,345]

56 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

We all should keep in mind that as bad as slavery in the US was, it was merely a subset of the slavery brought to the new world by all the colonial powers. The people of those nations knew it was wrong all along but it brought in a ton of profits and of course the evil that was and still is the church approved for the same reason. The struggle to be free and equal continues to this day.

Well said, Ken. After posting that; I thought, "Why do we keep talking about the past instead of planning for the future?" 

[gowlerk 2,218]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Well said, Ken. After posting that; I thought, "Why do we keep talking about the past instead of planning for the future?" 

Exactly. We can't change the past but we can shape the future. What matters now is how we deal with racism in ourselves and when we see it in others. sfzombie has spoken well about his self enlightening.

[jakee 1,534]

8 hours ago, BIGUN said:

And yet, the English Bill of Rights was written in 1689, about 90 years before the Declaration, yet slavery in England didn't end till 35 years before the US for a net capital gain of enjoying slavery 65 years longer than the US.

Cool! You do understand that you have just reinforced and strengthened my point, right?

 

And have you decided if you want to go with the "countries need a BoR so they can also have civil rights acts" statement, or the "countries wouldn't need civil rights acts if they had BoRs" statement?

Edited April 30, 2021 by jakee

[kallend 2,063]

11 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Maybe you need to re-read your history. Cartwright, Somerset, etc. all led to England having to formalize the abolition of slavery in 1833. In other words, England talked about it and "hoped" it would cease, but it didn't. 

The Act simply codified into law a number of legal precedents of the preceding centuries. 

Slavery was essentially illegal in England since the 16th Century (which, of course, didn't mean it didn't happen, just like human trafficking still exists in the USA despite being illegal).

And to paraphrase the stupidest argument of the gun lobby...

"We don't need no gun laws since criminals don't obey the law anyway."

Edited May 1, 2021 by kallend

[BIGUN 1,345]

11 hours ago, kallend said:

The Act simply codified into law a number of legal precedents of the preceding centuries. 

Slavery was essentially illegal in England since the 16th Century (which, of course, didn't mean it didn't happen, just like human trafficking still exists in the USA despite being illegal).

And to paraphrase the stupidest argument of the gun lobby...

"We don't need no gun laws since criminals don't obey the law anyway."

All true. And, the stage was set by the Magna Carta - a document that would influence change to this day. As you know, Madison relied heavily on its writings for the US Constitution. If given the ability to go back in time; I would like to meet Aristotle, Charlemagne, and King John.  

[JoeWeber 2,768]

On 5/1/2021 at 7:13 AM, BIGUN said:

All true. And, the stage was set by the Magna Carta - a document that would influence change to this day. As you know, Madison relied heavily on its writings for the US Constitution. If given the ability to go back in time; I would like to meet Aristotle, Charlemagne, and King John.  

In keeping with the original intent of the Magna Carta, the Texas Senate just passed a bill allowing for the open carrying of holstered weapons without license or permit. There can be no doubt that Aristotle would approve. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

10 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

In keeping with the original intent of the Magna Carta, the Texas Senate just passed a bill allowing for the open carrying of holstered weapons without license or permit. There can be no doubt that Aristotle would approve. 

"Current Texas law requires that in order to receive a permit for concealed or open carry of a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years old, pass a fingerprinted background check, complete four to six hours of classroom or online training, pass a written exam, and pass a shooting safety and proficiency test." The new law waives those requirements. Sheriffs and police chiefs oppose the changes.

As does a majority of the public "A solid majority of Texas voters don’t think adults should be allowed to carry handguns in public places without permits or licenses, though the idea is popular with a 56% majority of Republicans. Overall, 59% oppose unlicensed carry — a number driven up by the 85% of Democrats who oppose it. On the Republican side, the gun questions revealed a gender gap. Among Republican men, 70% said they support unlicensed carry; 49% of Republican women oppose that position."

But red meat to the base is all that matters in Austin.

[JoeWeber 2,768]

25 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

"Current Texas law requires that in order to receive a permit for concealed or open carry of a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years old, pass a fingerprinted background check, complete four to six hours of classroom or online training, pass a written exam, and pass a shooting safety and proficiency test." The new law waives those requirements. Sheriffs and police chiefs oppose the changes.

As does a majority of the public "A solid majority of Texas voters don’t think adults should be allowed to carry handguns in public places without permits or licenses, though the idea is popular with a 56% majority of Republicans. Overall, 59% oppose unlicensed carry — a number driven up by the 85% of Democrats who oppose it. On the Republican side, the gun questions revealed a gender gap. Among Republican men, 70% said they support unlicensed carry; 49% of Republican women oppose that position."

But red meat to the base is all that matters in Austin.

All on the way to happily ever after when armed speech will trump free speech from sea to shining sea. In the dyslexian theory of the Constitution the number 2 always comes before number 1.

[billvon 3,030]

38 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

"Current Texas law requires that in order to receive a permit for concealed or open carry of a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years old, pass a fingerprinted background check, complete four to six hours of classroom or online training, pass a written exam, and pass a shooting safety and proficiency test." The new law waives those requirements. Sheriffs and police chiefs oppose the changes.

Well, this will be another good acid test.  If the number of shootings plummet because of all those good preteens with a gun, then the gun lobby will be vindicated.  If the opposite happens, and it turns out that guns aren't the boon to 13 year olds that the NRA claims they will be - then there will be some very rapid spinning indeed, so that the Texas gun lobby can blame Nancy Pelosi instead of their own laws.

[BIGUN 1,345]

48 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Among Republican men, 70% said they support unlicensed carry; 49% of Republican women oppose that position."

Which means 51% are in favor? Must be a CNN quote.   

[SkyDekker 1,465]

47 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Which means 51% are in favor?

No. Some might just be indifferent.

Edited May 6, 2021 by SkyDekker