Forum Thread

Picking on the wrong amendment.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If as much scrutiny and responsibility and interpretation for the betterment and safety of life was applied to the 1st amendment as the 2nd amendment we wouldn't even be talking about the 2nd amendment. The right wing talk stars have abused the 1st amendment so much that all we have is hate and discontent. Totally destroying "united we stand" it is now every man for himself. Why does the 1st amendment get a free ride from the same people that would abolish the 2nd. Some people use the 1st to criticize and destroy our way of living while totally opposite viewpoint people defend the right of the abusers to speak. State's rights is the most selfish destructive path to take yet responsible knowing people support the right wing constantly tearing the Union down. Strong states rights is simply giving more power to local people. Supporting strong states rights tears down everything that a Nation stands for. Not one sane person can honestly say that strength and safety comes from disunity. Abusing the first amendment can inspire more people to act in their own interest than the 2nd does by allowing people to own guns. Assign responsibility for mass killings and it will lead to the abuse of the first amendment. Dangerous powerful people want disunity because it amplifies their power. Strong states rights advocates are people that relish feudalism. They want local power for control inspite of the benefits of a large federal government. Just like a labor union helps the underdog a unified country helps the underdog.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: If as much scrutiny and responsibility and interpretation for the betterment and safety of life was applied to the 1st amendment as the 2nd amendment we wouldn't even be talking about the 2nd amendment.

    There's been plenty of scrutiny and interpretation of the 1st Amendment. There have been hundreds of Supreme Court rulings regarding how the 1st Amendment is supposed to be interpreted. The most memorable recent interpretation of the 1st Amendment by the Supreme Court was in Citizens United vs FEC. Would you say that case received a lot of scrutiny?

    And I have a hard time understanding how you believe the 2nd Amendment faces as much scrutiny as the 1st. Second Amendment cases that reached their way to the Supreme Court are a minuscule fraction of 1st Amendment cases. We're talking 100:1 here.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The right wing talk stars have abused the 1st amendment so much that all we have is hate and discontent. Totally destroying "united we stand" it is now every man for himself.

    It is their right to abuse the 1st Amendment as much as they want. That is why we have the 1st Amendment. It's called "freedom of speech" and not "freedom from speech" for a reason.

    Now, if someone owns a business and wants to discriminate against a certain sect of the population then the Constitution prevents them from doing so because their business is in the public sphere. Discrimination is not speech.

    "United we stand" is a great saying, but this country has never been united. Different people have always had different opinions. Hell--we fought a Civil War not that long ago for Christ's sake.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Why does the 1st amendment get a free ride from the same people that would abolish the 2nd. Some people use the 1st to criticize and destroy our way of living while totally opposite viewpoint people defend the right of the abusers to speak.

    What does this even mean? I've never come across any rational person who has called for the 2nd Amendment to be abolished, but it is still their 1st Amendment right to say it if that's what they believe.

    Gun control advocates, myself included, tend to want to make it harder for someone to get their hands on weapons of war. If you want to go hunting. Great. Have fun shooting that deer with your rifle. But if you want to go shoot up a school full of elementary school children then you shouldn't be able to go to a gun store and buy an arsenal of weapons.

    Most gun control advocates also want guns to move into the 21st Century. We have the technology, now, to disable guns when they are in the public sphere. It's difficult for me to understand why some people find that controversial.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    jaredsxtn, The smart gun is the best idea there is. In addition to the smart control of a gun there should be a cell phone feature on guns. A gun should connect to a network that

    displays the location. Additionally it should transmit a signal that alerts monitoring devices. Areas desiring more protection could have monitors that alert when a gun enters the protected area. I have proposed the same idea for cars to identify and alert when a certain alcohol level is detected in the car. Even go as far as the car turns on a flashing light when the alcohol limit is exceeded. Same thing for a gun. Guns are intrinsically dangerous so if a gun enters a designated area it could make an alerting sound. Just as much right as a person has to own a gun a person has a right to not be in the vicinity of a gun. A gun that either alerts or triggers an alert would give peace of mind to people not wanting to be in the area of a gun. One of the most stupid enforcements of the concealed carry law is if a gun can be identified visually on a person that is treated as a violation of the concealed carry law. I would much rather be able to know if somebody is carrying a gun.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    jaredsxtn, The smart gun is the best idea there is. In addition to the smart control of a gun there should be a cell phone feature on guns. A gun should connect to a network that

    displays the location. Additionally it should transmit a signal that alerts monitoring devices. Areas desiring more protection could have monitors that alert when a gun enters the protected area. I have proposed the same idea for cars to identify and alert when a certain alcohol level is detected in the car. Even go as far as the car turns on a flashing light when the alcohol limit is exceeded. Same thing for a gun. Guns are intrinsically dangerous so if a gun enters a designated area it could make an alerting sound. Just as much right as a person has to own a gun a person has a right to not be in the vicinity of a gun. A gun that either alerts or triggers an alert would give peace of mind to people not wanting to be in the area of a gun. One of the most stupid enforcements of the concealed carry law is if a gun can be identified visually on a person that is treated as a violation of the concealed carry law. I would much rather be able to know if somebody is carrying a gun.

    Chet,you live in la la land; sure the technology can do a lot, but do you really think the gun hoarders will oblige to that? No they never will. Also don't forget for the 350 million guns around, no one wants to spent additional money to get these devices; why should they?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch, I don't live in la la land. Did you read my post on what it would cost to confiscate and dispose of 350,000 million guns? Three quarters of a trillion dollars. To put a device on 350,000,000 guns would cost at least 35 billion dollars. The point I am making is that any kind of mass killing control that would actually reduce the number of mass killings is impossible to do by eliminating guns. And eliminating all guns is the only way to reduce mass killings through gun control. Even if a law was passed to confiscate all guns the logistics and costs would prevent that from ever happening. Look at your response . You didn't say my idea wouldn't work, you said it couldn't be done. That is absolutely true and that is true about gun control reducing mass killings. It is absolutely impossible to pass any gun legislation that could be executed to significantly reduce mass killings. So why did Obama propose an executive order for gun control at a time when people are feeling more threatened in their homes. His legacy! Obama in his executive order is simply a way for his legacy to claim his advancement in gun control. In the face of the government trying more regulations and trying to criminalize gun activities what is the public reaction? Buy more guns. Is this a temperament that is going to turn over guns? Gun control advocates challenge the conscience citing 30,000 gun deaths but refuse to take any positive steps to reduce that number. Increased police protection would immediately reduce the number of mass killings. Gun control advocates oppose increased police presence and make their point by a reductio absurdum argument in citing the most extreme example of increased police protection. So the reduction of mass killings is not their objective. Having their way is their objective. How can they call attention to 30,000 deaths and in their next breath say using police protection to reduce that number is not worth it. Probably the most truthful words out of Bill Clinton were that gun control costs Democratic elections.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Dutch, I don't live in la la land. Did you read my post on what it would cost to confiscate and dispose of 350,000 million guns? Three quarters of a trillion dollars. To put a device on 350,000,000 guns would cost at least 35 billion dollars. The point I am making is that any kind of mass killing control that would actually reduce the number of mass killings is impossible to do by eliminating guns. And eliminating all guns is the only way to reduce mass killings through gun control. Even if a law was passed to confiscate all guns the logistics and costs would prevent that from ever happening. Look at your response . You didn't say my idea wouldn't work, you said it couldn't be done. That is absolutely true and that is true about gun control reducing mass killings. It is absolutely impossible to pass any gun legislation that could be executed to significantly reduce mass killings. So why did Obama propose an executive order for gun control at a time when people are feeling more threatened in their homes. His legacy! Obama in his executive order is simply a way for his legacy to claim his advancement in gun control. In the face of the government trying more regulations and trying to criminalize gun activities what is the public reaction? Buy more guns. Is this a temperament that is going to turn over guns? Gun control advocates challenge the conscience citing 30,000 gun deaths but refuse to take any positive steps to reduce that number. Increased police protection would immediately reduce the number of mass killings. Gun control advocates oppose increased police presence and make their point by a reductio absurdum argument in citing the most extreme example of increased police protection. So the reduction of mass killings is not their objective. Having their way is their objective. How can they call attention to 30,000 deaths and in their next breath say using police protection to reduce that number is not worth it. Probably the most truthful words out of Bill Clinton were that gun control costs Democratic elections.
    Chet, I was not talking about confiscating guns. The real truth is that all the present gun owners want to retain their status quo ; you can't turn the clock back either. What Obama is doing is just about all he can do; which actually does not change any future killings or impact any present gun owners. The devises you are talking about will cost the owners "money' and other complications; just like credit cards. My guess is the NRA will certainly object. Also how can you make sure any of your "devises" are not tampered with or removed or be able to be adapted or installed on older or foreign guns etc. It is much more complicated than you think; that is why I said the "la la land thing" ask the NRA.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So far the only benefit from this order is for the stock holders of Smith & Wesson and other arms Mfg.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I see that the Public response just don't get it. While many gun owners and NRA advocates show their anger toward Obama's coming Executive Action, we see where the gun manufacturers and NRA are showing their anger behind masked faces. The gun business sees major support from America on guns and an increase revenue based on the government provoking gun control initiatives. So what, lets uncover the mask on the gun manufacturers and NRA to show their smiles and insanely greed that shows them reaping a bounty of American support and "MONEY". This business does not loose even under the most draconian measures of Gun Control. Demand goes up.............Prices go up. Technological changes to weapons cause prices to go up. Government confiscates "old" weapons not in compliance with new gun control measures means more previous gun owners buying lots more "new" guns. This makes gun manufacturers and the NRA happy. The NRA will more than likely receive lots of donations and new members meaning more money for the NRA. Now everybody is happy. America has new gun control measures, gun manufacturers making tons of money and the NRA has a new army of members and life sustaining funds to the organization.

    Now..........how could that be so bad? Yes, gun manufacturers and the NRA are showing masked faces because they know they are going to get a lot of money. It's funny to watch the ignorant gun people get mad and angry at the government on gun control because they don't get it about the possibility of confiscation. Proven mentally ill, yes...........but that is proven "beyond any doubt", the courts will be slowed down again buy another factor of people objecting to some doctor calling them mentally ill. For those with a long past history of mental illness and those with violent crime histories than sorry, no gun for you. Those that cannot get a gun, the more enterprising people will find a way even if they have to make their own on a 3D printer.

    I have said in past that this Gun Control measure by Obama is just a First Step of many to come. All the NRA has to do is incite public resistance, which will stall future steps in Gun Control. Watch the money, maybe the stock reporting and you will see gun manufacturers, including the NRA are not poorly impacted while receiving lots of MONEY.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:

    I see that the Public response just don't get it. While many gun owners and NRA advocates show their anger toward Obama's coming Executive Action, we see where the gun manufacturers and NRA are showing their anger behind masked faces. The gun business sees major support from America on guns and an increase revenue based on the government provoking gun control initiatives. So what, lets uncover the mask on the gun manufacturers and NRA to show their smiles and insanely greed that shows them reaping a bounty of American support and "MONEY". This business does not loose even under the most draconian measures of Gun Control. Demand goes up.............Prices go up. Technological changes to weapons cause prices to go up. Government confiscates "old" weapons not in compliance with new gun control measures means more previous gun owners buying lots more "new" guns. This makes gun manufacturers and the NRA happy. The NRA will more than likely receive lots of donations and new members meaning more money for the NRA. Now everybody is happy. America has new gun control measures, gun manufacturers making tons of money and the NRA has a new army of members and life sustaining funds to the organization.

    Now..........how could that be so bad? Yes, gun manufacturers and the NRA are showing masked faces because they know they are going to get a lot of money. It's funny to watch the ignorant gun people get mad and angry at the government on gun control because they don't get it about the possibility of confiscation. Proven mentally ill, yes...........but that is proven "beyond any doubt", the courts will be slowed down again buy another factor of people objecting to some doctor calling them mentally ill. For those with a long past history of mental illness and those with violent crime histories than sorry, no gun for you. Those that cannot get a gun, the more enterprising people will find a way even if they have to make their own on a 3D printer.

    I have said in past that this Gun Control measure by Obama is just a First Step of many to come. All the NRA has to do is incite public resistance, which will stall future steps in Gun Control. Watch the money, maybe the stock reporting and you will see gun manufacturers, including the NRA are not poorly impacted while receiving lots of MONEY.

    Yes AMC that is the case. The only thing I grapple a bit with is the definition of being "nuts"; if you ask me half this country is "nuts" seeing the support Trump and the evangelicals gets; thus half this country should not own or allowed to buy a gun.