The UCSB shooters parents blame 2nd amendment.

[gftChris]

Actually what would be different today? In revolutionary times the richest men in America decided to fuck the king out of his taxes. Decided that the way King George ran the joint wasn't to their liking and staged and armed take over.

 

So what's different today? Aren't there plenty of people who think they are being overtaxed and that tax money is spent on things they vehemently oppose?

 

I'm being the devil's advocate here of course but why is right and wrong today different than it was during the fairy tale period of the Revolutionary War?

WSS

Right and wrong aren't different, but the means of dealing with them are. If someone does you wrong in the 17th century, you challenge them to a duel and one of you dies (for example). Modern society has (in developed countries) moved on from there to the point that you don't just kill someone you disagree with.

[MLD Woody]

First of all... dude, fuck off.

 

Second of all, you are saying it will never need to be changed? "Rights and freedoms" have already changed. We've already updated it once to remove slavery. How about the rights and freedoms regarding the internet, something the founding fathers could not even imagine would exist.

 

I would say the electoral college system is pretty messed up to start with. Then again we aren't 13 states anymore, our population is MUCH greater, and we have access to a wide array of technologies. I think there are some ways this could be updated, so swing states are less of a big deal, and so each vote actually matters more. Just the idea that this has to be written in stone and can never be changed doesn't make any sense.

 

The second amendment, for the reason Chris mentioned. The "well regulated militia" part really makes no sense in 2014.

 

A good amount of them could just be updated in their wording for the 21st century. Either in just the wording, or actually clarifying things (Ex, cruel and unusual punishment).

 

 

 

Again, I just don't see the rationale behind acting like it is written in stone. That it can never, ever be changed in any way. That it ridiculous, ignorant and dense. Shit changes, especially in 200+ years.

[Westside Steve]

Woody if the "dude" to whom you directed the fuck off is me allow me to reply that you are an ignorant twat who doesn't know shit from shinola about any of this.

On the rare occasion you even attempt to state your views other than calling somebody a name those views are almost always adolescent and uninformed.

 

OTOH if the dude is someone else, nevermind.

 

But of course you are correct, surprised?

 

I've repeated this plenty of times before but the Constitution and Bill of Rights are most certainly not relevant in today's world. I think it's ridiculous that politicians on both sides of the isle belly ache about the other side trampling on whatever rights they think are being abused. We have no rights beyond what the power brokers in Washington decide to dole out like snacks to your pets.

 

Remember, however, that means all of these so called rights are meaningless, even the ones you hold sacred. Whether you believe they come from a creator or the great and powerful Obama.

Whether you have a right to own a firearm, to drink a beer, to smoke a joint, to marry your boyfriend, to marry your three girlfriends or your sisters, to pay for the execution of criminals or to abort unwanted children, to practice your religion as you see fit, to fund a war you believe to be immoral or to say nigga or cock sucker on the radio the final decision is in the hands of judges appointed by presidents you may or may not like and whose numbers are less than the Politburo.

 

I realize I've made this point before but it's still true. All I say is if the Constitution citizen rights are so fucking important then those who believe that shouldn't try to take away someone elses. But that's human nature.

 

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

In terms of the second amendment, the part about an armed militia being necessary for a well run country - do we really need that in the 21st century?

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says. Has nothing to do with a well run country. The "well run country" thing is addressed in the original Constitution.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the actual clause.

 

But to answer your question (when addressing the actual clause) I feel it's absolutely necessary. Perhaps more so than ever.

[Legacy Fan]

First of all... dude, fuck off.

 

Second of all, you are saying it will never need to be changed? "Rights and freedoms" have already changed. We've already updated it once to remove slavery. How about the rights and freedoms regarding the internet, something the founding fathers could not even imagine would exist.

 

I would say the electoral college system is pretty messed up to start with. Then again we aren't 13 states anymore, our population is MUCH greater, and we have access to a wide array of technologies. I think there are some ways this could be updated, so swing states are less of a big deal, and so each vote actually matters more. Just the idea that this has to be written in stone and can never be changed doesn't make any sense.

 

The second amendment, for the reason Chris mentioned. The "well regulated militia" part really makes no sense in 2014.

 

A good amount of them could just be updated in their wording for the 21st century. Either in just the wording, or actually clarifying things (Ex, cruel and unusual punishment).

 

 

 

Again, I just don't see the rationale behind acting like it is written in stone. That it can never, ever be changed in any way. That it ridiculous, ignorant and dense. Shit changes, especially in 200+ years.

Ha.

 

Anyway, back to the points:

No rights or freedoms have changed. Definitions of men & roles of gender have changed. The "internet" is a freedom of speech issue. Covered by the 1st Amendment. Plenty of rulings confirming this.

 

So, the rights and freedoms haven't changed. It's impossible. Who is covered under those rights and freedoms are what have changed.

 

Let's keep it at that, Woody. I really think you're currently unable to grasp what the 2nd Amendment entails, so I think it's probably a waste discussing it with you.

[gftChris]

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says. Has nothing to do with a well run country. The "well run country" thing is addressed in the original Constitution.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the actual clause.

 

But to answer your question (when addressing the actual clause) I feel it's absolutely necessary. Perhaps more so than ever.

Yeah, I posted the actual line above and then discussed it.

 

Why is it necessary?

[BrownsKidd]

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says. Has nothing to do with a well run country. The "well run country" thing is addressed in the original Constitution.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the actual clause.

 

But to answer your question (when addressing the actual clause) I feel it's absolutely necessary. Perhaps more so than ever.

 

I think a lot of people forget that individual states were to hold a lot more power and were to operate as smaller countries within the US. However, as the population has grown, the federal government has grown, and now we see people looking towards Washington to get things done rather than their individual state. State elections should be vastly more important than the election of our President. But FF 200 years later, and we have constitutionally ignorant population, who don't give to shits about politics or anything else other than the hot topic of the day, delivered by a very one sided media, and remain politically inactive both locally and nationally.

 

The founding fathers had a certain number of rights, that they believed were God given. If you were to ask them today, if those rights were negotiable, they would probably scoff at you and throw you in the stocks. However, the founding fathers did realize that change is inevitable and that is why it can be amended, but also very difficult.

[calfoxwc]

It's fairly open to interpretation. You could read it as "we need a militia, therefore the people need to keep and bear arms" or you could read it as "we need a militia, this cannot be infringed; separately, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed" Chris

**************************************

Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise, Steve is wrong, too.What it means, is, following the grammar of the time,

is that allowing for the justified existence of a well-regulated militia, the PEOPLE still forever have the right to also

be armed. It's the comma. It differentiates between the two declarations.

 

And woodypeckerhead probably has no idea who he was cursing. Abolishing slavery? That was an ADDITION.

There never was an amendment that declared that slavery was an inalienable right. The abolishment of slavery

was a great thing - but it has nothing to do with taking away a God-given, Constitutional right of always having

the right to bear arms.

Surely, the only poster on this board stupid enough not to see the difference is woodypeckerhead.

 

The abolishment of slavery granted all Americans the inalienable, permanent right to not be enslaved.

It will never be taken away. The 2nd Amendment grants all Americans the inalienable, permanent right to

bear arms, as in guns.

 

Steve is wrong - the Constitution is the bulwark or our freedoms. Just because I can't own a machine gun

or a nuke, or whatever, doesn't mean that I can't own my own guns for the common purposes Americans have -

hunting, protection, sport We have the 1st Amendment - but you can't scream "fire" in a crowded movie

theater for fun, inducing panic.

 

Restricting the abuses of our freedoms is hardly the same as taking away our freedoms. In that, our

Constitution is not outdated. Again, we've had these conversations before, and woody and heck and a few

others got their arguments kicked to the curb.

 

And, sure enough, when the subject comes up again, they start in with the same old nonsense.

Until any anti-gunner can explain why he/she supports minding millions and millions and millions of

private solid citizens' business, instead of going after the criminals, and mentally unfit, they don't have

a case at all, and they simply alienate everybody else whose support they need to try to stop these

killings.

 

But wanting to put all Americans in a straight jacket of lack of freedoms, is no answer, and will never

solve any problem. And the ulterior motives are showing up over time.

[Legacy Fan]

Yeah, I posted the actual line above and then discussed it.

 

Yea- missed that scrolling. My bad.

 

Why is it necessary?

That answer is found in our Declaration of Independence.

 

You're smart enough to know where to find it, but here is a highlight:

 

 

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Legacy Fan]

Let's also keep in mind that the Bill of Rights were already drafted and being discussed prior to the ratification of the Constitution. They were "tacked on" 2 yrs later under an agreement so that the anti-federalists would ratify the Constitution.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

I keep saying this, but the Constitution was a framework for the logistics of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was already in play as a "check & balance" to limit the size and scope of the federal Government.

[MLD Woody]

Oh I didn't realize a god that probably doesn't exist gave you the right to own a gun, my bad.

[MLD Woody]

Woody if the "dude" to whom you directed the fuck off is me allow me to reply that you are an ignorant twat who doesn't know shit from shinola about any of this.

On the rare occasion you even attempt to state your views other than calling somebody a name those views are almost always adolescent and uninformed.

 

OTOH if the dude is someone else, nevermind.

 

But of course you are correct, surprised?

 

I've repeated this plenty of times before but the Constitution and Bill of Rights are most certainly not relevant in today's world. I think it's ridiculous that politicians on both sides of the isle belly ache about the other side trampling on whatever rights they think are being abused. We have no rights beyond what the power brokers in Washington decide to dole out like snacks to your pets.

 

Remember, however, that means all of these so called rights are meaningless, even the ones you hold sacred. Whether you believe they come from a creator or the great and powerful Obama.

Whether you have a right to own a firearm, to drink a beer, to smoke a joint, to marry your boyfriend, to marry your three girlfriends or your sisters, to pay for the execution of criminals or to abort unwanted children, to practice your religion as you see fit, to fund a war you believe to be immoral or to say nigga or cock sucker on the radio the final decision is in the hands of judges appointed by presidents you may or may not like and whose numbers are less than the Politburo.

 

I realize I've made this point before but it's still true. All I say is if the Constitution citizen rights are so fucking important then those who believe that shouldn't try to take away someone elses. But that's human nature.

 

WSS

 

 

No it wasn't directed at you.

 

But after reading that paragraph, fuck you. That was direct at you. What exactly makes you more qualified or more knowledgeable about any of this than me? Is this going to fall back to another "I'm older than you" load of bs?

 

"The rare occasion that I state my views" ... fuck off. I do constantly on here. Others just seem to ignore then or respond with their own insults/ignorance. Or wait... my bad... maybe I am supposed to have well thought out, long comments, for the dozens and dozens of "articles" we get posted on here from right wing blogs... my bad.

 

 

 

Oh wait though, I'm correct now because I agree with you. Oh thank god. Thank god. I was so worried I might be wrong but seeing how you agree with me, and you're always right, I actually have some verification now. What a relief...

[MLD Woody]

Ha.

 

Anyway, back to the points:

No rights or freedoms have changed. Definitions of men & roles of gender have changed. The "internet" is a freedom of speech issue. Covered by the 1st Amendment. Plenty of rulings confirming this.

 

So, the rights and freedoms haven't changed. It's impossible. Who is covered under those rights and freedoms are what have changed.

 

Let's keep it at that, Woody. I really think you're currently unable to grasp what the 2nd Amendment entails, so I think it's probably a waste discussing it with you.

 

 

So the change was that black men were now considered men, and women were now considered equal to men... alright

 

 

 

The constitution has a lot of vague, lose language that we've put in the courts hands to interpret for the new elements of modern society. Cars, the internet, phones, etc.

 

But again, for like the 3rd time, why is the Constitution treated like it is infallible? Why do people act like it is written in stone and can never be changed? Why are people so arrogant to believe that a bunch of dudes 200+ years ago wrote something so perfect it would still be completely applicable today? Why?

 

Or, ya know... just say "whatever, you just don't understand, and leave it at that....

[gftChris]

 

 

So the change was that black men were now considered men, and women were now considered equal to men... alright

 

 

 

The constitution has a lot of vague, lose language that we've put in the courts hands to interpret for the new elements of modern society. Cars, the internet, phones, etc.

 

But again, for like the 3rd time, why is the Constitution treated like it is infallible? Why do people act like it is written in stone and can never be changed? Why are people so arrogant to believe that a bunch of dudes 200+ years ago wrote something so perfect it would still be completely applicable today? Why?

 

Or, ya know... just say "whatever, you just don't understand, and leave it at that....

Because the bible was written 2000 years ago and is still completely relevant today...

[Legacy Fan]

Because the bible was written 2000 years ago and is still completely relevant today...

I'll assume you missed my answer to your question "why a militia is needed today"

 

Or is the e-high five a defense mechanism?

[The Cysko Kid]

The very fact that the constitution has been amended so often is stone cold proof that it is far from infallible.

 

Did not the supreme court in 2008 rule that the right to keep and bear arms was not unlimited? That there was, in fact,a a reasonable limit on what you could possess under the guise of "defense"

[gftChris]

I'll assume you missed my answer to your question "why a militia is needed today"

 

Or is the e-high five a defense mechanism?

I didn't miss it. It just comes down to the standard two arguments for retaining a militia:

 

1) What if the government tries to turn in to a dictatorship and running a military government? We need to be able to defend ourselves?

If this happens - and relax, it won't - then the rest of the world isn't going to sit by and let it happen. How long do you think the discussion would last in the UN? "Guys, this American regime is really causing a lot of trouble, I think maybe we need to remove it" - how quickly would Russia, China and the rest of the countries America has pissed off over the years step forward to volunteer to send a 'peace keeping' force over there? How many soldiers on the ground would follow orders to kill americans because of some dictator? And in fact, how many generals, captains, and the rest would actually follow the orders from above to give those orders? It's really a non-issue in the 21st century.

 

And how about in other countries where gun ownership is not a legal right? How many oppressive regimes are there in Europe? (Belarus is the only dictatorship left in Europe, btw)

 

2) What if another country like Russia invades? We need to be able to defend ourselves

Chances? Next to none. Chances of any group of gun owners being able to stop an army that the US military couldn't stop? Less than zero. Any attempt to invade by any China/Russia/Korea pact would be essentially countered by US/Canada/Europe/S.Korea/Japan/Australia and the rest of the free world - and the battles aren't going to take place in downtown Ohio, they'll be fought largely on the border between Europe and Russia (a little blurry atm!) and in the pacific.

 

So really, I see no need for a standing militia. If your reason for owning a gun is to fight off invading armies, join the army reserves.

[BrownsKidd]

The very fact that the constitution has been amended so often is stone cold proof that it is far from infallible.

 

Did not the supreme court in 2008 rule that the right to keep and bear arms was not unlimited? That there was, in fact,a a reasonable limit on what you could possess under the guise of "defense"

 

And time and context of the constitution needs to be realized. When the constitution was written, what type of firearms did they have? Perhaps, if they could see into the future, they would have put a limit on the type of guns that the citizenry could own. Do I think people should be able to own fully automatic weapons, I don't. There is no real good reason. However, to own a rifle or handgun I don't see a problem with for those that are physically and mentally capable of owning a fire arm.

 

 

[gftChris]

It may surprise you to learn that you are legally allowed to own firearms in the UK. Farmers in particular, as well as obviously those who go hunting, will typically have rifles/shotguns. But handguns, and assault rifles and the rest - the kind designed for killing people, not animals - are not allowed.

[MLD Woody]

[Legacy Fan]

It's not about a "standing militia" that's what the "standing army" is for.

 

Locke, etc. were keen on the common law of self defense. That is what is behind the nature of the 2nd amendment. Wherever it comes from.

 

Yes the idea of a Stalin-esque dictator marching along side an Army-State seems preposterous, because it is -which is probably why you wrote it that way. There won't be lines of troops marching at my home or your home forming rank and firing at my front door when their CO yells "fire!"

But we now know that this govt is willing to authorize drone strikes against it's own citizens.

 

The reason China and Russia DONT invade is because of the might of our military, and every backwoods slapdick has a gun giving an invading army nowhere to rest/regroup/re-supply. Your countrymen found that out the hard way.

[BrownsKidd]

It may surprise you to learn that you are legally allowed to own firearms in the UK. Farmers in particular, as well as obviously those who go hunting, will typically have rifles/shotguns. But handguns, and assault rifles and the rest - the kind designed for killing people, not animals - are not allowed.

But rifles and shotguns can't kill people? Where is the logic? They both can do the same thing, just two different formats.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

And time and context of the constitution needs to be realized. When the constitution was written, what type of firearms did they have? Perhaps, if they could see into the future, they would have put a limit on the type of guns that the citizenry could own. Do I think people should be able to own fully automatic weapons, I don't. There is no real good reason. However, to own a rifle or handgun I don't see a problem with for those that are physically and mentally capable of owning a fire arm.

 

 

I think the problem is that people don't want the government to tell them they are physically or mentally incapable of owning a gun. So you can either try to keep certain guns out of people's hands to try and limit the possibility of mass casualties which second amendment people hate, or try to reform the physical and mental standards of who can own a gun to try to keep them out of the hands of villains which second amendment people hate.

[MLD Woody]

It may surprise you to learn that you are legally allowed to own firearms in the UK. Farmers in particular, as well as obviously those who go hunting, will typically have rifles/shotguns. But handguns, and assault rifles and the rest - the kind designed for killing people, not animals - are not allowed.

 

Sounds like an incredibly dangerous place

 

If no one has guns then how will you use a gun to protect yourself from the people with guns?

[MLD Woody]

 

The reason China and Russia DONT invade is because of the might of our military, and every backwoods slapdick has a gun giving an invading army nowhere to rest/regroup/re-supply. Your countrymen found that out the hard way.

 

When was that again?

[gftChris]

But rifles and shotguns can't kill people? Where is the logic? They both can do the same thing, just two different formats.

The point is, you need to have a damn good reason to own one - hunting is a good enough reason, apparently. You're not convincing anyone you're going hunting with a semi-automatic.

 

Shotguns also don't have a particularly high rate of fire, so going on a rampage with one is going to be tricky. We seem to have found a balance between allowing firearms to people that have a genuine reason for having one and restricting general access.

[The Cysko Kid]

The point is, you need to have a damn good reason to own one - hunting is a good enough reason, apparently. You're not convincing anyone you're going hunting with a semi-automatic.

 

Shotguns also don't have a particularly high rate of fire, so going on a rampage with one is going to be tricky. We seem to have found a balance between allowing firearms to people that have a genuine reason for having one and restricting general access.

Do you still have wild animals in England worth hunting?

[gftChris]

Do you still have wild animals in England worth hunting?

Mostly game - grouse, pheasants, rabbits/hares, etc. In scotland you can hunt stags/deer for sport/food. Apparently with a bow and arrow in some places, which is quite cool!

[The Cysko Kid]

Yeah I think it's seasonal here. I'm not much of a hunter clearly. But if I were going to I think bow hunting would be more sporting.

[gftChris]

Yeah I think it's seasonal here. I'm not much of a hunter clearly. But if I were going to I think bow hunting would be more sporting.

I don't see a problem with rifle hunting, though bow just seems pretty cool - in a caveman, hunter gatherer kind of way. I believe the whole experience is more about the tracking, stealth and spending ages trying to get the perfect shot, right through the temples (or wherever), hence deer stalking, not deer shooting.