That pesky Constitution, making our lives more difficult. What saddens me almost as much as the shooting itself is how it shows just how weak and craven our society has become. We're all about talking about how "free" we are, but as soon as it might cost us anything, all that goes out the window. If we as a country decide we'd rather live in a full-on police state, that's one thing, but let's not then pretend we're doing anything else.
Y'all are making this ridiculous jump from "all the guns" to "none of the guns" while blatantly ignoring the area "in between the guns!". It worked in Australia, it could work here if we had the political and societal willpower to do so. But we clearly don't, because guns are important to the point where it's easier for me to buy enough guns and ammunition to cause large scale damage than it is to rent an apartment to sustain myself.
As I said elsewhere, Australia's homicide rate remained basically unchanged after their restrictions in 1996. The problem with this argument is it's like saying restrictions on free speech or more lax warrant requirements are fine because we're not totally restricting free speech, and we still sometimes require a warrant. I mean, I get that some people may disagree with the 2nd Amendment's presence in our constitution, but the whole point of having a constitution in the first place is because we don't want the government to be able to pick and choose. You can't applaud the First, Fourth, Fifth, whatever amendments but then say we should ignore the Second. I'm fine with some more restrictions on gun ownership/purchasing within reason, but that's not what I was talking about. The President's statements are that we should be able to arbitrary restrict a constitutional right based on associations with people we don't like. Sure, Daesh is pretty much the worst. But what happens when someone down the road says "remember how bad Daesh was? Well, these Communists/Liberals/Gays/Transgendered/Blondes are just as bad!"
Man, fuck the Constitution. "It's in the Constitution" should not be a valid argument for keeping things the way they are. I know some might think I'm a heretic or whatever but I think we should decide the laws that we want to uphold in our nation. The fact that some racist assholes thought 250 years ago that folks oughta have muskets is not enough to prove to me that the government shouldn't regulate assault fucking rifles. Maybe it's time for another amendment. But even that's not necessary: is vague enough to accommodate regulation anyway. In fact, that's the whole point. It was written vaguely because our Founding Fathers couldn't agree one way or another so they basically left it up to their descendants. So what did we do? Just assumed they meant what we wanted them to instead of actually considering the issue for ourselves.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Guess you won't mind if the police walk into your house and start rifling through it, then? Of course. But that's not what Obama was saying, and so that's not what I was criticizing.Man, fuck the Constitution.
is vague enough to accommodate regulation anyway.
I'm not saying let's get rid of the Constitution. I'm saying a policy being in the Constitution is not an acceptable defense for its continued enforcement. Except it is? He's not saying get rid of all the guns, right? So it's not prohibition. Gotta be regulation.Guess you won't mind if the police walk into your house and start rifling through it, then?
But that's not what Obama was saying, and so that's not what I was criticizing.
Well, the warrant requirement is in the Constitution too. If that's not an "acceptable defense for its continued enforcement," what is, exactly? No, but what he is saying is that one right (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) is subject to having "gone to an ISIS website." I'm sure I've been to some shady websites during my time on the Internet, does that mean my Constitutional rights are less than yours?I'm saying a policy being in the Constitution is not an acceptable defense for its continued enforcement.
Except it is? He's not saying get rid of all the guns, right?
No, not like legal justification. The justification for it continuing to be law. Basically I'm saying don't take further amendment off the table. That's beside the point. I'm just saying guns can be regulated, which is what Obama suggests. You said that wasn't what he said.Well, the warrant requirement is in the Constitution too. If that's not an "acceptable defense for its continued enforcement," what is, exactly?
No, but what he is saying is that one right (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) is subject to having "gone to an ISIS website." I'm sure I've been to some shady websites during my time on the Internet, does that mean my Constitutional rights are less than yours?
That's fine, and that's how it should work. But in the meantime we can't pretend that it doesn't exist because we don't agree with it. I was referring to his statements about the no-fly list versus gun purchasing.Basically I'm saying don't take further amendment off the table.
I'm just saying guns can be regulated, which is what Obama suggests.
That's fine, and that's how it should work. But in the meantime we can't pretend that it doesn't exist because we don't agree with it.
This was also my point before I got muted into oblivion. I'm glad there are other sane minds out here that agree with this point.
But a regulation based on free speech and association. You know, the kind guaranteed in by the First Amendment?
I'm definitely not, and don't think we should (discount all regulation, that is). But all I was saying before was that the specific things Obama suggested were not what we should be looking at.