Printable View
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .... it's the guns. There are always nutjobs in every country and the only time they get to killing sprees of this magnitude is when they get guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by bimale69
It's not just the nutjobs - it's a society that allows them to purchase these guns.
Nah, that dog don't hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by bimale69
The problem is the weapons themselves.
There is no NEED whatsoever for civilians to own semi/automatic weaponry...You have them because you WANT them.
anyone can carry atomic bombs with proper permits , it's not the atomic bombs that are the problem , it's the fucking wacko's..........Quote:
Originally Posted by scopas66
But Jefferson's proposal, though it may reflect his views, is not written into the Constitution or its Amendments, and that is the text which forms the basis of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
Context here is critical for two reasons: 1) for 1791 it explains the precise concerns that existed at a time when the new America was justifiably anxious that its Revolution would be derailed and that British Imperialism would try to re-assert itself on its financially most lucrative Colonies; hence the resort to armed militias; and 2) Because contemporary America must find a way of 'keeping the Constitution alive' to the changes that have taken place since 1776 either by Amending the Constitution, or by interpreting its provisions in the context of 'today'.
The rift between Justice Scalia's judgement, and Justice Stevens' in Heller -vs- Dictrict of Columbia, suggests that one Justice believes there is a Constitutional right for all citizens to own firearms, while the other believes this right is partial and mediated through the concept of armed militias = ie, an individual -vs- collective right. If Stevens is right, then States have the right to impose limitations on the ability of citizens to obtain firearms; if Scalia is right then restrictions -other than those imposed on those who are mentally ill etc- could be interpreted as UnConstitutional.
BUT, if there is a contemporary opinion to be had, the changes that have taken place to firearms ought surely to be factored in. It is one thing for a patriotic American in 1791 to purchase a rifle to arm himself against another British invasion -which did indeed happen in 1812- but does this mean in 2012 any American believed at the time to be sane, needs and therefore should have the right to purchase automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons, 6,000 rounds of ammunition and all the rest of whatever else he wants in his private arsenal? And when the records show that 100% of these weapons are used against other Americans rather than an invading army, is it not time to subject the 2nd Amendment to what you Americans call a reality check?
this will never happen , they will fight for the right to be killed....Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
it's much safer to be out in London in the middle of the night than most american cities , who cares why....
With all due respect, I never said Jefferson's views on the second amendment's raison d'etre were as ambiguous as they are in amendment itself. My point is that the only intent made explicit in the amendment is the intent that private citizens could use their own weapons when serving in state militia. Jefferson's other intentions never made it into the amendment. Perhaps because the other framers didn't agree with them. Perhaps because the framers thought one significant reason was sufficient. Perhaps stylistic brevity. It doesn't matter. Clearly the explicit intention is antiquated, as would be many of the original intentions behind the second amendment including many of Jefferson's. What matters is the history of interpretative precedents that lead to today's applications of the law. The precedents were based on arguments that through time refit the amendment to new circumstances, new technologies and newly perceived intentions. I agree with Stravros, the bare bones of the second amendment's intent are not as clear as Jefferson's personal views. However, I presume a lot more could be said about intent of the courts that interpreted the amendment through the years by studying the relevant cases and precedents. This temporal string of interpretations is what clarifies the law, not Jefferson's lone opinion nor the opinion of any group of founders.Quote:
With all due respect to Trish and others...there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .
Even though I believe our current guns laws are way to lax, I don't think the Constitution needs to be amended. I just think the court needs become the deliberative, rational, non-partisan body it was originally conceived to be.
Picture tells a 1000 words. Look at this failure.
http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/i...ng.400x800.jpg
Now Mr Spaceman in court.
http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/i...ng.400x800.jpg
This is also James Holmes. All he wanted was a Slurpee Machine back then.
James Holmes Speaking at Science Camp - YouTube
Maybe all the people who hate guns so much should grow a fucking pair and just say what they SHOULD be saying if they're truly so afraid. ALL guns should be abolished. Take every gun on the planet and melt it down. Don't fight against something only to the point YOU personally feel comfortable with it, if your going to go down that road go all the damn way, not just until you get tired and feel like giving up. If you truly believe guns are so horrible, believe they are ALL equally as bad. Ragging on a specific section of gun users, in this case the private citizenry, is hypocritical and cowardly. If your going to campaign to end gun use then do just that, but have enough self respect to realize that it doesn't stop with Mr. & Mrs. Smith, until all the guns are gone from the world, those who wish to use them to do harm to others will find a way.
The guy definatley has alot of mental issues, looks alot more like a douchey facebook photo than a mugshot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
But you do have a Constitution and Laws, and these instruments have attempted to regulate the purchase of firearms because over the years it has been realised that some people are not trustworthy with them. You have a Standing Army paid for by taxes, just as you have police forces which means: you have dedicated, and armed organisations to guarantee your security. What you need to address are the causes of crime, because the relatively easy availability of firearms in the USA means gun-related crime is more common than it is, for example, in the UK. Instead of starting with the end result, try working on what causes crime. Limiting the availability of guns is one way of changing the profile of, and the fatal element in crime, that is what I think you are reluctant to engage with.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaustin