Time To Dump The Second Amendment?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You're free to lie all you like, Fredo. Your proclivity for antisemitism and conspiracy theories precedes your claims about me. Your choice to spend the rest of your life hating people, dude. I'm more into the adage "If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.” LOL
Crazy people often like to spin things.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
You're free to lie all you like, Fredo. Your proclivity for antisemitism and conspiracy theories precedes your claims about me. Your choice to spend the rest of your life hating people, dude. I'm more into the adage "If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.” LOL
Crazy people often like to spin things.
not too bad.
pithy.
trenchant, yet, carefree.
too bad you're going to hell.
An extremely stupid argument whose origination evolves from ignorance and naivete'.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
I don't like it either but it is inevitable.
Refusing to accept that sounds like a good way to be perpetually at odds with the government of the society in which one lives.
Logically, as the world becomes more complex, and new dangers are presented for an increasing number of individuals in a society, the government of that society must become more complex, and new laws further restricting individual freedom will have to be enacted.
That is why part of our society includes 'lawmakers' and 'lawmaking.'
Look at the big picture. Before civilization, when humans or our predecessor species were hunter-gatherers with very rudimentary social structure, there were few rules; and great freedom. As civilization began, there had to be more rules and enforcement. A loss of freedom. From that point forward, with the advent of each new aspect of human creativity, there came new dangers and new ways for individuals to violate others privacy or safety. And with every new danger or way for humans to violate others' possessions or safety, governments are petitioned to create new rules and enforcement. And each time, more individual freedom is lost.
Basically, you freedom to swing your fist, or anything, is limited by the presence of other humans. The more humans, the less freedom.
There's no reversing evolution. And there is no freezing the amount of freedom an individual possesses in time. Time goes by, freedom is reduced. Period. Fighting that is a losing battle.
I don't like it either but it is inevitable.
Refusing to accept that sounds like a good way to be perpetually at odds with the government of the society in which one lives.
Logically, as the world becomes more complex, and new dangers are presented for an increasing number of individuals in a society, the government of that society must become more complex, and new laws further restricting individual freedom will have to be enacted.
That is why part of our society includes 'lawmakers' and 'lawmaking.'
Look at the big picture. Before civilization, when humans or our predecessor species were hunter-gatherers with very rudimentary social structure, there were few rules; and great freedom. As civilization began, there had to be more rules and enforcement. A loss of freedom. From that point forward, with the advent of each new aspect of human creativity, there came new dangers and new ways for individuals to violate others privacy or safety. And with every new danger or way for humans to violate others' possessions or safety, governments are petitioned to create new rules and enforcement. And each time, more individual freedom is lost.
Basically, you freedom to swing your fist, or anything, is limited by the presence of other humans. The more humans, the less freedom.
There's no reversing evolution. And there is no freezing the amount of freedom an individual possesses in time. Time goes by, freedom is reduced. Period. Fighting that is a losing battle.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
3rd - yes, but no reason to overturn it. It simply isn't a problem. but it's not a bad right to have just in case.
27th - no.
3rd - yes, but no reason to overturn it. It simply isn't a problem. but it's not a bad right to have just in case.
27th - no.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Disagreed on inevitable, Ms. Poli. To say so is to be among those screaming "Disaster!" during the Great Manure Crisis of 1894.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/
What do you think would be the result if mankind successfully resolved mental health issues as it did with getting to the Moon, the Obama-Biden Cancer Moonshot or developing a COVID vaccine? How many tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year in America alone?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
It is impossible to hold back the sands of time or progress.
The world gets more complex, governments get more complex.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who think we have enough laws already, we don't need any more, we should simply abolish Congress. They hate the government anyway. A lot of people would totally be all for that.
Ain't gonna happen. We need Congress. Like it or not. We need new laws. Like it or not.
Every new law has it's proponents and it's objectors.
And despite the objectors we are constantly reshaping our laws as needed.
It is inevitable.
It is impossible to hold back the sands of time or progress.
The world gets more complex, governments get more complex.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who think we have enough laws already, we don't need any more, we should simply abolish Congress. They hate the government anyway. A lot of people would totally be all for that.
Ain't gonna happen. We need Congress. Like it or not. We need new laws. Like it or not.
Every new law has it's proponents and it's objectors.
And despite the objectors we are constantly reshaping our laws as needed.
It is inevitable.
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed on progress. What you see as progress is removing human rights. What I see as progress is expanding human rights.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
How can human rights possibly be expanded as population expands?
That is illogical.
Rights could not even be held as is if we had ZPG.
We would also have to freeze progress and technological development.
Invent something new, and a new way to hurt others is invented. And so we need new laws and new limits on freedom.
How do you get out of that?
How can human rights possibly be expanded as population expands?
That is illogical.
Rights could not even be held as is if we had ZPG.
We would also have to freeze progress and technological development.
Invent something new, and a new way to hurt others is invented. And so we need new laws and new limits on freedom.
How do you get out of that?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No more illogical than mankind going from Kitty Hawk to the Moon in 66 years.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
During that time, the right to own a machine gun was taken away. Many rights were lost. Including the right of men to be the only ones allowed to vote.
During that time, the right to own a machine gun was taken away. Many rights were lost. Including the right of men to be the only ones allowed to vote.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
...and Jim Crow laws were okay in those days for another half century.
Sorry, Ms. Poli, but unlike you I think the purpose of government is to preserve and enhance human rights not strip them from people.
The 2nd is not a problem, either, since any gun control measure with any chance of passing is already possible. The 2nd is not stopping "reasonable" (favored by a large number of people) gun legislation.
Why isn't the 27th obsolete since Congress gets the same cost-of-living pay raises as Social Security without having to vote on it each year?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
The 27th applies today because most Americans would not want Congress to be able to vote themselves a raise. A COLA is not a raise. It simply attempts to equal out the same buying power as before inflation over a period.
The 2nd is a potential problem because of the ambiguity over the word infringe. Nearly any weapon safety law or regulation that keeps any person from getting any 'arm' could be argued that it is infringing on the right. Who is the government to keep any wanna-be power junkie from acquiring their own nuclear ICBM?
What if somebody combined a gun, a video camera, a remote display/control and a drone? A litigator representing that individual could argue that if the government wanted to make that illegal, it was infringing on the right to bear an arm.
The 27th applies today because most Americans would not want Congress to be able to vote themselves a raise. A COLA is not a raise. It simply attempts to equal out the same buying power as before inflation over a period.
The 2nd is a potential problem because of the ambiguity over the word infringe. Nearly any weapon safety law or regulation that keeps any person from getting any 'arm' could be argued that it is infringing on the right. Who is the government to keep any wanna-be power junkie from acquiring their own nuclear ICBM?
What if somebody combined a gun, a video camera, a remote display/control and a drone? A litigator representing that individual could argue that if the government wanted to make that illegal, it was infringing on the right to bear an arm.
If Congress increases its pay, it is a pay raise and the 27th says it cannot accept the money until after an election occurs.
It was obsolete when it was ratified because Congress had already given itself automatic pay raises in the form of automatic COLAs. Then, they get a pay increase without having to vote on it and angering the voters.
Some members always want to vote on whether to accept it every year and the fight is over whether to have a vote. If they do nothing, they get a pay increase. If they vote on it, they go on record to take a pay increase.
I think their pay has been frozen since 2009.
That has not been an issue. The amendment currently says "infringe" but there are many regulations on gun ownership that are constitutional. Gun control is not restricted by the 2nd Amendment so much as by Congress and state legislatures that choose not to make additional laws.
If the 2nd was abolished those legislative bodies would be no more inclined to pass stricter laws than they do now with a few possible exceptions.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
It's not a violation of the 27th because no law varying the compensation has taken effect since an election.
It doesn't even mention guns. It says arms.
A litigator could claim a city weapons ban is infringing on the right to bear arms. If somebody wanted to walk down fifth avenue with a sword that should be fine.
It's not a violation of the 27th because no law varying the compensation has taken effect since an election.
It doesn't even mention guns. It says arms.
A litigator could claim a city weapons ban is infringing on the right to bear arms. If somebody wanted to walk down fifth avenue with a sword that should be fine.
Agreed, that is why it is obsolete. As long as Congress gets an automatic increase they are not voting themselves a pay raise. They could set the COLA as high as they want.
The Heller case already covers that reasonable regulations are constitutional. If it is illegal to walk down 5th Avenue with a sword, that means the 2nd Amendment is not stopping NYC from regulating that conduct.
Current NYC laws include both firearms and other weapons...." firearms, dart guns, stun guns, various types of knives, cane swords, billy clubs, blackjacks, bludgeons, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chukka sticks, sand bags, sandclubs, certain sling shots, shirkens or “Kung Fu stars.”
Those restrictions don't go away if we abolished the 2nd, keep it, or interpret it differently.
[h=1]"A man with a sword went into an Apple Store and yelled 'I just want an iPhone'"[/h]
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
No, the COLA is already defined. The 27th would prevent them from increasing the COLA for themselves prior to an election taking place.
"Under the terms of Public Law 101-194, the Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989, lawmakers receive an annual adjustment in pay [a cost of living adjustment or COLA] equal to the change in the government's Employment Cost Index for the fourth quarter of the prior calendar year versus the year before that (this constitutes a one-year time lag between when the pay raise is measured and when it actually takes effect). "
NTU
No, it simply means it has not been ruled such by the SCOTUS. And the public is losing confidence in the SCOTUS because they have shown they can suddenly flip on long established precedent. The public wonders what precedents might stand and which might be flipped.
Or it could mean that the NRA has not made it a point to challenge such laws all the way to the SCOTUS.
No, the COLA is already defined. The 27th would prevent them from increasing the COLA for themselves prior to an election taking place.
"Under the terms of Public Law 101-194, the Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989, lawmakers receive an annual adjustment in pay [a cost of living adjustment or COLA] equal to the change in the government's Employment Cost Index for the fourth quarter of the prior calendar year versus the year before that (this constitutes a one-year time lag between when the pay raise is measured and when it actually takes effect). "
NTU
No, it simply means it has not been ruled such by the SCOTUS. And the public is losing confidence in the SCOTUS because they have shown they can suddenly flip on long established precedent. The public wonders what precedents might stand and which might be flipped.
Or it could mean that the NRA has not made it a point to challenge such laws all the way to the SCOTUS.
That is not new. Some of our most famous decisions reversed precedent--school segregation, sodomy, search and seizure, same sex marriage...............
See the long list here:
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/