Making the ownership of handguns illegal

The choices show that reducing death is not the objective. We can reduce shooting deaths by giving out free poison.

If the objective was preventing murder, it would not involve attacking second amendment rights and providing killers with easy victims.

In your example, do you also disarm law enforcement?

 

This thread is not about the causes of gun violence and within the confines of this thread, I don't care about the causes either. That's a different subject for some other thread. Labyrinth-ing the problem is exactly why it hasn't been solved and is exactly how the problem has been intentionally smoke-screened by profiteers. In order to solve the problem, you need to concentrate on individual steps towards a solution, tag it, and then go on to the next step .... not necessarily in any order. Once you've thoroughly analysed each step only then can you put all the pieces together and see what fits and what needs to be compromised in order to come to the most sensible conclusion - the best solution to the problem.

 

If you say so. When you decide to actually read what Justice Scalia set out, and understand that the Federalists are, actually what a court would use to determine 'intent", perhaps you'll understand why your position is so frightfully wrong. I would also suggest that by precedent, your assertion has already been rebuked a number of times at the SCOTUS level. If you try to cop out by saying you'd never reach the super majority necessary, that's just wishful thinking on your part. The more durable road is to understand that other than house keeping needs or clarifications, the amendments past the 10th have not sought to either create or diminish other non existing rights. The tell us things about construction of government, or inclusion of groups into the basic rights set, but so far, no one has ever thought that the original 10 rights as defined would, or could ever be rescinded or substantively altered.

Now, I know that flies in the face of what collectivists insist are their rights to determine everything for the rest of us, but, well, there you have it.

 

The slippery slope starts somewhere. Perhaps they do not, but advocating that the rights themselves could be threatened is pretty concerning on its face.

 

That's the problem, no one cares about the cause or causes of the problem which you admit. Only in a band aid fix.

 

it doesn't matter how many times you insist on being wrong. Constitutional law remains the same. Every single amendment can be repealed by a subsequent amendment. Nothing, at all, is special about the first 10 amendments, nor is there anything anywhere in the constitution that precludes them from being repeal by amendment. the constitution specifically states that they can be repealed/amended. Article 5.

 

thank you. I do not support repealing them. I only point out that they can be repealed, by subsequent amendment.

 

The rights exist independent of any law. All laws, including the COTUS, are subject to the whims of whichever ruling political class interprets and enforces them. The world is a very dangerous place, especially for 'the little people'.

 

I thought that was your position. You also pointed out that amending the COTUS is very difficult.
OTOH, flexible interpretation and enforcement is far easier for any authority so inclined.

 

Don't misquote me. I never said that. You're on the wrong thread. Take your gripe to the right one and stop your bitching.

 

No one can be told the truth so many times and still not understand it. He's trolling you to see if he can make you angry. My advice is to stop feeding him.

 

The you don't understand what article V actually says. The article was clarified abundantly in the Federalists. Of course, should you think it necessary, you could always introduce an amendment that clearly outlines your position, and see if anyone supports you. The basic natural rights of people are outlined in a way that you cannot otherwise rescind or take away from the people. It is the fundamental premise of our nation.

 

it doesn't matter how many times you insist on being wrong. Constitutional law remains the same. Every single amendment can be repealed by a subsequent amendment. Nothing, at all, is special about the first 10 amendments, nor is there anything anywhere in the constitution that precludes them from being repeal by amendment. the constitution specifically states that they can be repealed/amended. Article 5. And there is no such thing as natural rights. They are a philosophical construct. Rights are what a society agrees they want, an codified into law. That's it.

 

Your exact words and I quote, "I don't care about the causes either."

Have a nice day and I didn't misquote you as you see above.

 

Yes, you did misquote me. This is what I said:

And you have a nice day all the rest of this week.

 

The first mass single shooting was by Charles Whitman in the University Texas Tower shooting in 1966. They theorized a brain tumor had affected him mentally. I remember it and how it shocked the nation.

 

Well, At least you're honest. You believe you have no natural rights? That your rights are only derivative of what government allows you to have? That's pretty instructive.

 

nobody does. It's a philosophical human construct. We have only the rights society has agreed we want, and codified into law.

no, it's derivative of what a society wants for itself, and codifies into law. Rights do not exist in nature. Just ask the minnow, or the rabbit, or the chipmunk, which are all eaten by larger animals.

 

What a limited world you must inhabit. It starts the second I decide to take your rights away from you. Once their gone, and you have none, then what? Think it will inspire you to develop a different sensitivity? I do. I bet you find the Renaissance about that time.... And then, welcome to the modern world.

I will leave you with this. I cannot find one instance in nature where nature hasn't developed some form of natural defense for its inhabitants. What group of nature do you think created that defense for said nature?

We, because of our own natural defense of self awareness, create the laws. We understand that for folks to be free, there are certain rights of conscience that we don't allow government to take away from us as individuals. We do this, because we lived through the pain of societies that took those rights from the people. And now, because we are both vested with experience and conscience, we establish those things which are unalienable. We actually wrote those words to describe our discontent to our oppressive masters in England. Perhaps you forget that part, but obviously I think it's a good use of time to remind you of those things.

Article V suggests that we can add, or we can change constitutional structures. it does not suggest, nor will you find any substantive evidence that the framers ever considered that their addition of article V would otherwise change or modify their inclusion of these "unalienable" rights that we are now referring to. You can continue to ignore this because you don't agree. But what you are actually supporting here is the actual tyranny this nation was designed to never allow happen. And with that, I'm done trying to write your term paper for you.

 

it's called reality.

Again, natural rights do not exist, outside of a philosophical human construct, as evidenced by nature.

Every living thing has a survival instinct. You can thank evolution for this. The facts remain, there are no rights in nature. As the minnow will gladly tell you.

which is a nice sentiment, but it's still a human construct. Rights do not exist outside of that.

That you don't understand constitutional law is your own problem, and no one elses. There is nothing in any way special about the first 10 amendments to the US constitution. The constitution specifically provides a mechanism for altering any portion of the document, via article 5, which includes the first 10 amendments. This is objective fact, and a matter of constitutional law.

 

Can't. They're all dead.