TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Second Amendment FOR the people!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Second Amendment FOR the people! - Page 2

post #31 of 44
It is scary that some people here and other places think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. Plus, throw out the Constitution. I am wondering if they are young, middle aged or older. But whatever their age, those are some very disturbing views IMO.
post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
The writers of the Consitution knew human nature, human history, and government very well; much better than we do today, I think. Their thinking has stood the test of time. The U.S. is the only country to have a government and a constitution that has stood for a couple hundreds of years and more. And look at all the countries that seem to find the need to revise their constitutions from time to time to "reflect modern society" -- Mexico, Columbia, Italy, Turkey, .... all the countries that take their constitutions lightly are countries with shaky governments where the people's rights are often trampled upon, where the people have no trust in their legal systems, where the military often make the decisions, .... I could go on and on about the dangers of revising constitutions anytime they don't seem to fit in with modern thinking. It's often the modern thinking that's at fault, not the Constitution.
While I agree with the general tenor of this post, I think it has to be qualified.
Quote:
The U.S. is the only country to have a government and a constitution that has stood for a couple hundreds of years and more.
Britain's government and (uncodified) Constitution are much older; the U.S. has the oldest written constitution.
The British Constitution

Quote:
And look at all the countries that seem to find the need to revise their constitutions from time to time to "reflect modern society" -- Mexico, Columbia, Italy, Turkey, .... all the countries that take their constitutions lightly are countries with shaky governments where the people's rights are often trampled upon, where the people have no trust in their legal systems, where the military often make the decisions, .... I could go on and on about the dangers of revising constitutions anytime they don't seem to fit in with modern thinking.
The U.S. Constitution has been amended, i.e., revised, 27 times. The Bill of Rights itself comprises the first ten amendments.
The Bill of Rights
Constitutional Amendments
post #33 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess View Post
I'm sorry but why does ANYONE need a hand gun??!! Unless you hunt you do not need a gun. The court was wrong. The gun bans are needed to curb violence, now gun violence will no doubt rise in DC. This is truly a sad day.
Do I own a handgun? Nope. Do I need one? No, not really. But why should I be denied being able to own one for self-protection or for sport if I want to just because someone else doesn't think I should? I wouldn't force you to own a handgun. Neither should you (collective "you" for anyone who supports the bans) be able to force me not to.

It IS in the Constitution, and it is there for a reason. The reason is not just to supply a force of citizens who are trained with firearms to be able to defend the country as a "militia" if necessary, it is also to give the citizens more than just the power to vote. So many people in the past 6 years have feared that Bush would somehow usurp the Constitution and become, in essence, "King George". An armed citizenry gives the government pause if they were to try something like that. And yes, you can say what you want about the military, but there are a lot more of us private citizens who are armed than there are members of the military. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that the rest don't go down the tubes on the whim of those in power.

Yes, the Constitution has been Amended 27 times. But those first 10, which really set up this country, have stood the test of time.
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Britain's government and (uncodified) Constitution are much older; the U.S. has the oldest written constitution.
I'd have to disagree, mildly as it's half semantics, and you're correct about the written Constitution, but BG doesn't have a constitution in the same sense: an uncodified constitution doesn't carry the same weight as a written constitution. Britain's rule of law and structure of government has evolved and while the people have mostly the same freedoms they aren't guaranteed by the founding documents of the country, but rather in various collections of documents, writings, written laws and common laws that for have evolved over time, and the key word is evolved, which indicates change, so a large part don't carry the same weight as does the U.S. Constitution, which is the same today as when written. Ammended, certainly, but for the most part the ammendments ADD to the Constitution and CLARIFY it, rather than CHANGE it. Another way to put it: The rights and rule of law of the British people carry the weight of tradition, history and law, but do not carry the weight of being above the law and the government, because they aren't the direct origin of the government as is the case of the US Constitution. They could be changed, correct? Repealed even? Technically, at least. And GB would still exist. If the US Constitution was repealed, the USA would no longer exist. It's the incorporating document of the country. The U.S. Constitution was the first of its kind, even though much of the law itelf was from English Law and the concepts of the structures of government as well as enlightened concepts of the rights of the people and the relationship between the people and the government. Sorry, if I'm not making much sense, it's very late and my brain is slightly addled.

If my midnight ramblings don't make sense, I'll try to clarify tomorrow.
post #35 of 44
I hate guns, don't hunt, don't ever plan to hunt or anything. My feelings about guns go back and forth.
I will say I grew up in a house with them and I did sleep a little easier knowing my father had them. He grew up hunting and was comfortable handling weapons. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt if someone broke in to our home they most likely would never make it very far.
My mother asked me if I could ever shoot someone and kill them. We had this debate not too long ago. I thought long and hard. I really wanted to say No but it wasn't true. If someone threatened my life or my daughter's life and I had a gun then I would shoot them. No hesitation whatsoever.
In an ideal world we would not have guns at all. But we don't live in one.
post #36 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
In an ideal world we would not have guns at all. But we don't live in one.
I don't know that my ideal world would be without guns. I use them for sport, paper punching, and it is a sport that I dearly love.

But in an ideal world, guns would never be used against another person with malicious intent. Neither would knives or baseball bats or rope or duct tape or the human body. That, to me, is the difference - the malicious intent. And we already have laws against that, and those laws don't stop the bad guys from doing it anyway.
post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I'd have to disagree, mildly as it's half semantics, and you're correct about the written Constitution, but BG doesn't have a constitution in the same sense: an uncodified constitution doesn't carry the same weight as a written constitution. Britain's rule of law and structure of government has evolved and while the people have mostly the same freedoms they aren't guaranteed by the founding documents of the country, but rather in various collections of documents, writings, written laws and common laws that for have evolved over time, and the key word is evolved, which indicates change, so a large part don't carry the same weight as does the U.S. Constitution, which is the same today as when written. Amended, certainly, but for the most part the amendments ADD to the Constitution and CLARIFY it, rather than CHANGE it. Another way to put it: The rights and rule of law of the British people carry the weight of tradition, history and law, but do not carry the weight of being above the law and the government, because they aren't the direct origin of the government as is the case of the US Constitution. They could be changed, correct? Repealed even? Technically, at least. And GB would still exist. If the US Constitution was repealed, the USA would no longer exist. It's the incorporating document of the country. The U.S. Constitution was the first of its kind, even though much of the law itself was from English Law and the concepts of the structures of government as well as enlightened concepts of the rights of the people and the relationship between the people and the government. Sorry, if I'm not making much sense, it's very late and my brain is slightly addled.

If my midnight ramblings don't make sense, I'll try to clarify tomorrow.
That makes perfect sense. I don't disagree at all; I'm just mindful that many of our members and guests aren't from the U.S., and aren't familiar with the U.S. Constitution.
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
I don't know that my ideal world would be without guns. I use them for sport, paper punching, and it is a sport that I dearly love.

But in an ideal world, guns would never be used against another person with malicious intent. Neither would knives or baseball bats or rope or duct tape or the human body. That, to me, is the difference - the malicious intent. And we already have laws against that, and those laws don't stop the bad guys from doing it anyway.
Exactly. People do all kinds of things to harm each other. It is the intent of the person that is the biggest issue. Evil people will find ways to do evil things.
Still not a gun fan but I can see the value of them for a sport. Thanks you for pointing that out. I had not thought about sport shooting.
post #39 of 44
If I could have but one wish, it would be to banish evil from the world.
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess View Post
I'm sorry but why does ANYONE need a hand gun??!! Unless you hunt you do not need a gun. The court was wrong. The gun bans are needed to curb violence, now gun violence will no doubt rise in DC. This is truly a sad day.
Have you ever read the Washington Post? I can see the Washington Monument from my parking lot, and I can assure you that banning guns in DC has not prevented gun violence in the city.

I live in Virginia (mere seconds from DC proper). I share my apartment with a tactical shotgun, an assault rifle, a semi-automatic pistol, and a revolver. Any idea how many times any of them have been used for violence? Any idea how many times they have been accidentally discharged?

In case anyone is actually wondering, the answer to both questions is a big fat zero.

Where I live (Arlington, VA), crime is almost nonexistent (compared to DC), and we have a "shall issue" state Re: concealed handguns. There is pretty much no crime where I live. If you read the crime report in the Post, there might be a lewd comment at a traffic light or a defaced traffic sign. I'm not kidding. It's ridiculous. If you travel just a minute or so north to DC, you find all kinds of crime.

Banning guns does not prevent criminals from getting guns. Banning guns just ensures law-abiding citizens won't get them. You know, since they abide by the laws and all. Banning /= eradication.

I do like guns. I like knowing that I can euthanize just about any living thing, if need be. I like knowing that I can defend myself, if need be. I don't think either situation is particularly common. However, I have had plenty of livestock, and I know that it does come up. I have yet to need a firearm to defend myself, but I would definitely prefer having them and not needing them to needing them and not having them.
post #41 of 44
You shoot your livestock? Whoa
post #42 of 44
I think the reference is in regard to euthanization, Cindy. Livestock that are too sick or injured too badly to stand up have to be euthanized because they'll die anyway if they can't get up. A bullet in the brain is a humane solution. Quick and painless, and terminates suffering.
post #43 of 44
In addition to Tim's thoughtful response, I also used to shoot my poultry with a .22 rifle before processing them. Technically, it was probably overkill, but I never felt guilty about it. I could never wrap my brain around just slitting their throats. Shooting them always struck me as less problematic.

I've also shot wildlife that happened to enter my backyard and meet up with my dogs. I'm not going to sit around and cry about an opossum when I could be putting it out of its misery.

Of course, I've shot my livestock. I'm honestly surprised to be getting this question from you, ckblv. Honestly, I don't think, for one second, that you are actually shocked by the idea of shooting livestock. Where do you live? You have usually struck me as someone who lives in a place where animal welfare and animal rights tend to meet in a very gray area.

I am a huge animal-lover. Everyone I know would probably be shocked at my opinions posted in this thread, but I don't really care what anyone thinks about my opinion of animal rights. I like to eat meat. I have no issues with killing animals for meat. I do have issues with inhumane treatment of animals.

***Edited because I have no idea what I was rambling on about late at night. Sorry for the thread hijack, lol.***
post #44 of 44
If an animal needs to be killed and is put down humanely, I have no problem with that. Yes, a bullet to the brain is preferable to suffering.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Second Amendment FOR the people!