Obama's Stance on Concealed Carry?

[Socrtease]

I'm not all that cool Epicurus, I'm just a bit of a maverick (always have been). I don't know BB personally but I can tell you his online persona is very reasonable. I've had a few discussions with American cops online which were simply flame-fests (over politics). Funnily enough every American cop I've ever met face to face - and I've met a few - has been okay (they can't drink though)

Not fair to compare drinking abilities of American's and Aussies. You people are the most functionally alcoholic people I have ever met. I hung out with Aussies and Kiwis at Oktoberfest every year I was in Germany and also one year at the Running of the Bulls. I think you all are genetic freaks.

 

[Epicurus]

Common sense.

Americans kill more people than in war zones.

Common sense.

I'm afraid there is no "Common Sense" amendment to the Constitution.

I understand that you view the document as limited and contstraining, but it is what has protected us from tyranny for over 200 years. By taking the Bush-like view of the Constitution as a "living document", you can justify trampling all over it.

It would be entirely hypocritical for you to criticize Bush for not respecting the Constitutional limits on his power because you yourself freely ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with what you want to believe.

 

[blackascoal]

Of course it is "living" in the respect that there was a process added to it to change those portions which were set and Amendment 9 for those that were not.

This is one of those set ones. Pretending that set rights are removable at will is preposterous and ignores the actual document itself. If your version of it were in effect all it would take is a "leader" who convinces himself that your right to speak would be better denied because it would be "better for society as a whole" to get rid of one of the more popular rights.

If you have the impression that I'm saying that all Obama has to do is wave his hand and things change, that would be an incorrect assumption.

The Constitution is living because the Framers intended it to be living and they knew they could not predict the future.

Certain "set rights" have been removed, most specifically the right of white men to rule the nation at will.

My point isn't what's set in the Constitution, but rather what is intelligent and best for the country.

As I have said, I fully recognize the American love of guns and death framed as "freedom" .. but just as a great many tenets of the Constitution have given way to intelligence, at some point so may the love of death.

Whatever hoops this nation must go through to get to intelligent legislation is another story.

 

[Socrtease]

Americans do NOT kill eachother with guns in astronomical numbers. That is just plain false. And when you do a cost benefit analysis, which includes the number of guns in the general population to the number of firearms homocides, the number of guns used in those crimes are negligible, regardless of the case by case affects on the people who are directly touched by murder. And when compared to the number of times a fire arm is used for self defense in this country, the benefit FAR outweights the cost. Even the most conservative estimates are 800,000 self defense uses per year in this country. That doesn't mean fired in self defense, it means used in self defense, without a fire arm WHO KNOWS how many of those people would have been victims of crime. I have posted the CDC numbers on firearms homocide till my fingers have bled. I have posted the stats on use of fire arms for self defense until my fingers have bled. (ok not really) but there is just no NON EMOTIONAL reason for banning any firearm in this country. Pools kill more kids per year than firearms do, and pools aren't designed to kill.

 

[Damocles]

If you have the impression that I'm saying that all Obama has to do is wave his hand and things change, that would be an incorrect assumption.

The Constitution is living because the Framers intended it to be living and they knew they could not predict the future.

Certain "set rights" have been removed, most specifically the right of white men to rule the nation at will.

My point isn't what's set in the Constitution, but rather what is intelligent and best for the country.

As I have said, I fully recognize the American love of guns and death framed as "freedom" .. but just as a great many tenets of the Constitution have given way to intelligence, at some point so may the love of death.

Whatever hoops this nation must go through to get to intelligent legislation is another story.

All of those were removed by constitutional amendment, just as this one would have to be.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I believe in a living Constitution. I respect its foundation, but I see it as dynamic and its orginalist ideas as an impediment to todays society.

Nor do I believe in "individualism" over what's best for the whole of society.

In fact, I believe in mixed economies, mixed society, and mixed ideologies of democracy and socialism .. which is not prescribed by the Constitution.

This is the typical rantings and blatherings of 'socialists' or nanny staters who feel that people don't deserve freedoms, however, because the constitution can't readily be changed due to the super majority required, they wish to call it 'living' and have friendly justices redefine terms to suit their own insecurities and fears. These are the people that try to tell you your simple little life isn't worth piss as long as the whole of society is protected.

 

[blackascoal]

I'm afraid there is no "Common Sense" amendment to the Constitution.

I understand that you view the document as limited and contstraining, but it is what has protected us from tyranny for over 200 years. By taking the Bush-like view of the Constitution as a "living document", you can justify trampling all over it.

It would be entirely hypocritical for you to criticize Bush for not respecting the Constitutional limits on his power because you yourself freely ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with what you want to believe.

It may have protected you from tyranny my brother, but it did not protect my parents or their parents from it .. nor does it protect me or my family from it today. We are relatively protected by laws and legislation, not the Constitution.

I agree there is no common sense clause in the document .. but commin sense has quite often been added .. which is my point.

 

[Damocles]

This is the typical rantings and blatherings of 'socialists' or nanny staters who feel that people don't deserve freedoms, however, because the constitution can't readily be changed due to the super majority required, they wish to call it 'living' and have friendly justices redefine terms to suit their own insecurities and fears. These are the people that try to tell you your simple little life isn't worth piss as long as the whole of society is protected.

QFT

 

[Damocles]

It may have protected you from tyranny my brother, but it did not protect my parents or their parents from it .. nor does it protect me or my family from it today. We are relatively protected by laws and legislation, not the Constitution.

I agree there is no common sense clause in the document .. but commin sense has quite often been added .. which is my point.

Actually those were added in at the beginning and removed by the very process we are saying should be used.

Seriously, change it as you will, just do it the way it was proscribed for those things that are set in the constitution. All we ask is that people in government actually UPHOLD that which they swear to uphold.

 

[blackascoal]

This is the typical rantings and blatherings of 'socialists' or nanny staters who feel that people don't deserve freedoms, however, because the constitution can't readily be changed due to the super majority required, they wish to call it 'living' and have friendly justices redefine terms to suit their own insecurities and fears. These are the people that try to tell you your simple little life isn't worth piss as long as the whole of society is protected.

A completely unintelligent ideology driven ranting that doesn't deserve a response other than an appreciation of its comical nature.

It's stupid actually.

 

[blackascoal]

Actually those were added in at the beginning and removed by the very process we are saying should be used.

Seriously, change it as you will, just do it the way it was proscribed for those things that are set in the constitution. All we ask is that people in government actually UPHOLD that which they swear to uphold.

All I ask is that people in goivernment do what's best for the country, the Constitution is an afterthought to doing what is best in my opinion.

If it needs to be changed or added to AGAIN, then so be it, but the interest of the country is more important than paper .. in my opinion.

 

[Damocles]

All I ask is that people in goivernment do what's best for the country, the Constitution is an afterthought to doing what is best in my opinion.

If it needs to be changed or added to AGAIN, then so be it, but the interest of the country is more important than paper .. in my opinion.

Again, as long as changes come by the method proscribed in the document. Add or remove, don't just ignore.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A completely unintelligent ideology driven ranting that doesn't deserve a response other than an appreciation of its comical nature.

It's stupid actually.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

 

[uscitizen]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Not in the case of Bush by about 30% of the Republican party.

their conclusion will be that is is self evident that it is all the liberals fault.

 

[blackascoal]

Again, as long as changes come by the method proscribed in the document. Add or remove, don't just ignore.

Whatever procedural machinations have to be dealt with are secondary to me .. no differently than the struggle for civil rights. Who gave a fuck what the Constitution did or did not say? Civil rights had to be achieved by any means necessary, the Constitution be damned.

America is one of, if not the most violent nation on the planet.

We can keep killing 15-20,000 Americans a year and call it "freedom" or we can grow up.

Just my opinion.

 

[blackascoal]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Thanks, you make my point.

 

[Damocles]

Whatever procedural machinations have to be dealt with are secondary to me .. no differently than the struggle for civil rights. Who gave a fuck what the Constitution did or did not say? Civil rights had to be achieved by any means necessary, the Constitution be damned.

America is one of, if not the most violent nation on the planet.

We can keep killing 15-20,000 Americans a year and call it "freedom" or we can grow up.

Just my opinion.

And I'm glad it is "just your opinion" and not how it works. Those Machinations created an environment where change was able to come, more often than not, without war.

 

[blackascoal]

And I'm glad it is "just your opinion" and not how it works. Those Machinations created an environment where change was able to come, more often than not, without war.

I'm glad that's just your opinion .. but in reality the Constitution didn't mean shit and wasn't worth wiping my ass with it for hundreds of years.

That's not how it works in reality.

What you're talking about is theory.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm glad that's just your opinion .. but in reality the Constitution didn't mean shit and wasn't worth wiping my ass with it for hundreds of years.

That's not how it works in reality.

What you're talking about is theory.

everything is theory, until you act on it. the constitution doesn't 'protect' you anymore than the police will protect you. It's what you do with it on a daily basis that makes the difference.

 

[blackascoal]

everything is theory, until you act on it. the constitution doesn't 'protect' you anymore than the police will protect you. It's what you do with it on a daily basis that makes the difference.

Then what good is it?

If it requires real action to change and address evil, why consider the Constitution at all?

Just address evil .. do the paperwork later.