This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Graylight · 51-55, F
“Antifederalists,” those who feared a large centralized government, never wanted the Constitution. The opponents worried the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion; not weekend warriors. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.
James Madison, who won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution, proposed 17 amendments. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. It stayed that way for 200 years until [i]Heller[/i], when the steep shift on this amendment was unprecedented.
But that’s the history of the amendment; you know, the one every single HS drop-out suddenly understands with the clarity of an oracle. The practical issue at hand – and the vastly more deadly one – is that too many people die from too many guns. We don’t parse out the elemental reasons and agents and existential arguments when a vehicle crash happens; we don’t wonder if it’s drivers or really the cars killing people. That’s all NRA double-speak.
We know there are too many guns because people keep dying.
We know few care enough to voluntarily make a change. Wait until it’s their child.
We know what helps. Strict gun regulation.
We know what works better. Virtually no access to firearms.
We know it can be done. We're the only major nation not to have yet done it.
The answers are easy. The action is hard.
James Madison, who won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution, proposed 17 amendments. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. It stayed that way for 200 years until [i]Heller[/i], when the steep shift on this amendment was unprecedented.
But that’s the history of the amendment; you know, the one every single HS drop-out suddenly understands with the clarity of an oracle. The practical issue at hand – and the vastly more deadly one – is that too many people die from too many guns. We don’t parse out the elemental reasons and agents and existential arguments when a vehicle crash happens; we don’t wonder if it’s drivers or really the cars killing people. That’s all NRA double-speak.
We know there are too many guns because people keep dying.
We know few care enough to voluntarily make a change. Wait until it’s their child.
We know what helps. Strict gun regulation.
We know what works better. Virtually no access to firearms.
We know it can be done. We're the only major nation not to have yet done it.
The answers are easy. The action is hard.
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@Graylight It is possible to change a constitutional amendment. But there is a right way and a wrong way. The gun control fanatics want to do it the undemocratic way by using flawed logic in interpreting the Constitution. This kind of thing would take us down a very VERY bad road. The second amendement is part of a whole framework of laws that have prevented us from becoming a dictatorship or totalitarian state. Damaging this framework is far worse than all the mass shootings that have taken place to date. If you have a proposal for an amendment to prohibit or control guns, I will listen to what you have to say. I might even support it. If you want to damage our society with fake legislation from the bench or with laws that violate the constitution, then we will be in the same place ten years from now as we are today. You. Will. Fail.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@irishmolly72 The Constitution is a piece of paper. It's a record of the principles, hopes and plans of a community over a relatively short span of time. It was meant to be interpreted, altered, adapted and relevant to its times. From 1789 through 2019, approximately 11,770 measures have been proposed to amend the United States Constitution. There have been 14 proposals this year alone.
Most liberal democracies, including those in Western Europe, amend their constitutions with great frequency. Germany amends its Basic Law almost once per year, and France a bit more than once every two years. Most states in the U.S. amend their constitutions every couple of years. Somewhere, people got the sense that a template for a nation's government was tantamount to the Holy Bible.
The 2nd amendment was written in a certain time by men with certain concerns for that certain part of the world. Needs change. people adapt. Policy change works. The will of the people is of secondary concern in the face of a public health emergency.
When we put seat belts in every car, a nation didn't scream and gnash their teeth about communism and a totalitarian state. most people don't even own a gun and use the argument for "freedum's" sake. Time for people to grow up.
Most liberal democracies, including those in Western Europe, amend their constitutions with great frequency. Germany amends its Basic Law almost once per year, and France a bit more than once every two years. Most states in the U.S. amend their constitutions every couple of years. Somewhere, people got the sense that a template for a nation's government was tantamount to the Holy Bible.
The 2nd amendment was written in a certain time by men with certain concerns for that certain part of the world. Needs change. people adapt. Policy change works. The will of the people is of secondary concern in the face of a public health emergency.
When we put seat belts in every car, a nation didn't scream and gnash their teeth about communism and a totalitarian state. most people don't even own a gun and use the argument for "freedum's" sake. Time for people to grow up.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@Dainbramadge Guns kill too many people. We're the ones with the guns. We need fewer guns or tighter rules.
Is it really so hard to stay focused?
Is it really so hard to stay focused?
Graylight · 51-55, F
@LeopoldBloom Well, I'd start with talking to the leaders who effected it in their countries.
Dainbramadge · 56-60, M
@Graylight Cars kill way more people than guns.
Should we restrict the people who don't do anything wrong with their cars?
Lets make it harder for everyone to get a license and a car to make that number go down.
Should we restrict the people who don't do anything wrong with their cars?
Lets make it harder for everyone to get a license and a car to make that number go down.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@Dainbramadge Cars aren't created with the express purpose of taking life.
Dainbramadge · 56-60, M
@Graylight So let's just punish a bunch of people that don't do anything wrong with their guns because of a few nut jobs???
It would be easier and more effective to make sure more people had guns.
That would work.
You will never un-invent the gun. So why not deal with it the way that would work rather than punish law abiding citizens.
It would be easier and more effective to make sure more people had guns.
That would work.
You will never un-invent the gun. So why not deal with it the way that would work rather than punish law abiding citizens.