Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[swilow]

That justice system? They get interpret the law? No thanks. Just another tyrannical government program that needs to be completely abolished and hung for treason.

Hang that goddamn justice system. Right on.

 

[cduggles]

So the state decided instead of just reading the constitution which every American should do. We are gonna appoint 9 people within interests of the state, created a justice department, all with paid with stolen money, to interpret the constitution, with the emohasis on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and a consensus came that said putting restrictions on guns is not unconstitutional.

Who even are these people with the tyranny of the state to just completely override the constitution? Do u even understand what they have passed before? Sterilization of ppl with intellectual disabilities. Japanese internment in WW2, separate but equal.

That justice system? They get interpret the law? No thanks. Just another tyrannical government program that needs to be completely abolished and hung for treason.

Supreme Court is actually up there for reasons of why I hate the state

I get the whole anarchy vibe, but why do the words of a bunch of white male slave owners in 1791 trying to crystal ball the future outweigh the judgement of 9 appointed judges from the here and now?

It's so self-selecting.

 

[JessFR]

The constitution provides a way for it to be modified with the times. A referendum. Which is a big part of what I don't like about the suggestion the Supreme Court should essentially reinterpret the law to change its function. I mean I don't think the 2nd amendment provides an absolute right that can't ever be denied in the same way as there are limits on other rights. What I don't like is what seems like some suggesting they interpret the 2nd amendment into being a collective right retroactively which has no legitimacy in historical fact.

And what I don't like about it most of all, is that the constitution provides a way for updating it to reflect changing time, a referendum. And the only reason people are suggesting it be reinterpreted over simply changing the 2nd amendment the legitimate way, is they know that far too many people disagree with it for a referendum to pass. Which means they know that it's undemocratic and can't be changed the legitimate way, and want to find a loophole to do it anyway. It's underhanded and opposed to both democracy and proper interpretation of the law.

I don't think denying felons the right to own weapons is unconstitutional. But trying to radically reinterpret the 2nd amendment because you know you can't change it the way the system provides because too many ordinary citizens disagree with you seems very wrong to me.

 

[undiminished689]

I get the whole anarchy vibe, but why do the words of a bunch of white male slave owners in 1791 trying to crystal ball the future outweigh the judgement of 9 appointed judges from the here and now?

It's so self-selecting.

Because 9 judges got on ruling and said you know people with intellectual disabilities are legally not allowed to have kids.

And then another 9 judges just said o you know we are gonna put a whole population of people in concentration camps in America. Most of them being American citizens.

And like I said who are the 9 judges to tell me how to live my life when they didn?t have law degrees for most until the 1940s. And then it?s the obvious fact that if state is picking these people and the state has an agenda they are gonna pick the people that will go with that agenda. Kinda like a police department investigating itself. It?s absolute tyranny.

Then it?s just stupid because the constitution is pretty well written and art tight on how it wanted it?s state to govern it?s ppl. You gotta remember these guys were freedom fighters from what they say was tyrannical when the crown put a tea tax on them.

Maybe the founding fathers weren?t perfect. But we have absolute lunatics running around in government. And government has literally infiltrated every faction of our lives today compared to 100 years ago people telling the state to f*ck off when they made laws to mandate everyone be put in schools.

 

[undiminished689]

The constitution provides a way for it to be modified with the times. A referendum. Which is a big part of what I don't like about the suggestion the Supreme Court should essentially reinterpret the law to change its function. I mean I don't think the 2nd amendment provides an absolute right that can't ever be denied in the same way as there are limits on other rights. What I don't like is what seems like some suggesting they interpret the 2nd amendment into being a collective right retroactively which has no legitimacy in historical fact.

And what I don't like about it most of all, is that the constitution provides a way for updating it to reflect changing time, a referendum. And the only reason people are suggesting it be reinterpreted over simply changing the 2nd amendment the legitimate way, is they know that far too many people disagree with it for a referendum to pass. Which means they know that it's undemocratic and can't be changed the legitimate way, and want to find a loophole to do it anyway. It's underhanded and opposed to both democracy and proper interpretation of the law.

I don't think denying felons the right to own weapons is unconstitutional. But trying to radically reinterpret the 2nd amendment because you know you can't change it the way the system provides because too many ordinary citizens disagree with you seems very wrong to me.

You took the argument right out of my head. Bravo. I hope theres an absoulete awakening to how tyrannical these pieces of sh*t truly are.

 

[spacejunk]

You took the argument right out of my head. Bravo. I hope theres an absoulete awakening to how tyrannical these pieces of sh*t truly are.

if you hate the state and government how can you have such reverence for the constitution?

 

[JessFR]

The constitution is a principle. An idea and an ideal. You can believe in it while hating the real world realities of how it's put into practice.

What you suggest is like asking how you can believe in the law but not way its being enforced. Actually, it's not like that, it is that.

 

[alasdairm]

Then it?s just stupid because the constitution is pretty well written and art tight on how it wanted it?s state to govern it?s ppl.

right. the 2nd amendment clearly says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

do you own a gun? can you tell me more about the well regulated miltia to which you belong?

I hope theres an absoulete awakening to how tyrannical these pieces of sh*t truly are.

well, the 2nd amendment enshrines your right to bear arms so you can fight this tyranny. what are you waiting for?

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

I can't really comment on the second part, but I will on the first.

English back when the constitution was written wasn't "that" different from today. A well regulated militia being necessary is the reason why the right shall not be in fringed. Not the right of the state, the right of the people. No other right in the bill of rights exists solely to grant power to government. There's no reason they would write that it's a right of the people if they meant the right of the state, when that's not the context used elsewhere. There's no question it was written with the intention of protecting the citizens right to have weapons.

Now yes, back then things were very different, and if you wanna make the argument that the founding fathers could not have foreseen the repercussions, I'd agree with you. If you wanna argue that they might not have written it that way had they foreseen it, I'd say that's quite plausible too.

But they didn't, and they did write it that way. And they provided a means to change the constitution should the world change and it becomes problematic and obsolete.

So tell me, why are you trying to argue that it doesn't protect the right of the people? Why don't you just argue that it does protect the right of the people, but that it was written for a different world and the founders knew the constitution might need to be updated in future, and that we should have an amendment to change the 2nd?

It's a rhetorical question of course. You and I both know we can't do that because too many people disagree. But there in lies the problem I have. It seems to me that you know we can't change it via the intended system because the intended system requires too much agreement. And too many American citizens don't agree for that to happen. Which means you think it's OK to ignore the rules altogether and change the meaning illegitimately. Because it's for the greater good.

Would you say that about sums it up?

There aren't many truly evil people in the world thankfully. But unfortunately there are many horrible evils committed because of people believing it has to be done for the greater good, because they know better.

 

[spacejunk]

but isn't it the very foundation of "the state"?

i ask because i think they're so intertwined as to be almost inseparable - the constitution (and the principle) is defended by the state. without the state it would be useless wouldn't it?

i'm curious if anything, because i don't see how the constitution could mean anything if there were a United States of America. i guess i'm wondering how anyone would have use for such a thing if it weren't based around the idea of having government.

in principle, i'm support the idea of abolishing nation states altogether, but for all the corruption - and the tyranny - i also try to be pragmatic about the system we've got now and working to improve it.
there's also the matter of vital infrastructure (roads, water, sewage, hospitals.

i suppose what i'm trying to say that i hear quite a lot of anti-government rhetoric at the moment, and it makes me wonder how many of the people saying that stuff take the role of government completely for granted.

and - y'know - governments are made up of people; it's not just an amorphous blob or oppression - but i guess that is more common in countries with social welfare provisions, universal healthcare and education that is partially subsidised or fully government funded, because you see some tangible personal benefits of the government actions, and not just the stuff we can easily overlook - or nor not even know about.

most people here might not even consider the fact that lots of hospital admissions don't incur any bills out-of-pocket expense for the patient - but the fact that they do, and it saves lives; especially those of people who cannot afford non-subsdised medication or treatment.
Brits seem to be much more aware and supportive of the NHS that australians are about Medicare - but they both do a great deal to improve the lives of the people that use them.

i also don't know what model people have in mind for a country with a constitution, but no government...

 

[alasdairm]

^ i find it a little dissonant sometimes too - people revere these guys and the document they wrote but the system of government the same guys created is evil... they say we get the government we deserve. right now, i think that could not be more true

So tell me, why are you trying to argue that it doesn't protect the right of the people?

i'm not. my position on the 2nd amendment is routinely misrepresented - and sometimes just plain lied about - in this forum.

Which means you think it's OK to ignore the rules altogether and change the meaning illegitimately. Because it's for the greater good.

i'm not saying - and have never said - that.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

OK, then what I fail to see is how you can honestly argue the 2nd amendment is a collective right of the state. It's meaning is clear. The right of the people. The state already has the power to take up arms. It doesn't need a 2nd amendment to do that. And certainly not one that clearly addresses it as a right of the people among many other rights of the people. No other amendment of the bill of rights works that way. Then there's the historical context. Given the roll of state militias at the time, their existence is mentioned as an explanation of the need of the right. I just don't see how a collective interpretation of the 2ne can be sensibly made. I can see how you can argue that it's a mistake in hindsight, and I can see how you can argue that the founders might not have intended it to have the repercussions it has had. But not that it doesn't mean what it means at all.

 

[Xorkoth]

I agree Jess. It seems very clear to me that the intent behind the 2nd amendment (and the wording too) is attempting to secure the peoples' right to bear arms against tyranny.

 

[alasdairm]

OK, then what I fail to see is how you can honestly argue the 2nd amendment is a collective right of the state.

i'm not saying that.

The right of the people.

right. i agree. but that doesn't mean there can't be conditions.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

No, it doesn't mean there can't be conditions. But it probably does mean those conditions can't be universally applied to people who haven't done anything wrong yet.

 

[alasdairm]

the decision in the heller case suggests otherwise.

alasdair

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I get the whole anarchy vibe, but why do the words of a bunch of white male slave owners in 1791 trying to crystal ball the future outweigh the judgement of 9 appointed judges from the here and now?

It's so self-selecting.

Well for one they were less conservative and less religious.

Today?s Supreme Court is like a bunch of ministers by comparison.... featuring Reverend Ginsburg

 

[JessFR]

the decision in the heller case suggests otherwise.

alasdair

Not that I can see. From what I read, it doesn't have much new to say on the subject at all, just that the right exists as an individual right in a capacity violated by the DC laws at the time. This is entirely putting aside the fact that that the Supreme Court changes its mind and gets things wrong from time to time. But seemed clear to me they didn't wanna make a judgment beyond the standing of the case.

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah I think the biggest reason why things have gotten bad is that we've gotten complacent and most people are not exercising their ability to do something about the system. Anyone could run for public office, start small in your community and go from there, and get inside the system to influence it. But by and large it seems that people are too disenfranchised for that - and I think the disenfranchisement is intentionally fostered. The people entering politics seem to be largely the types you don't want entering politics, because the power appeals to them and the system wants them to be the ones up and coming... therefore they are. And the people who actually want what's best for everyone are too disgusted by it to try, or feel that they can't do anything, or, like me, feel like that life would fucking suck and I want no part of it.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

the types you don't want entering politics

Politicians don't live up to your ideals because moral objectivism isn't a reality.