Are we so Societally Evolved as to render the Constitiution (2nd Amend.) Antiquated...

[Hutch Starskey]

There's always a reluctant group that lags behind. They're called conservatives.

If conservatives are to blame, then why didn't we have school shootings back when America was more conservative?

It's conservative policy that put a gun in this kid's hands.

Americans have owned guns since this country was founded. So I ask again, why didn't we have school shootings when the country was more conservative?

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

You haven't explained anything. There is no conservative policy of "putting guns in hands". It's fully up to the individual whether or not they want to own one.

You want to take that right away.
Because it's an easy fix.
Instead of taking a look at what the left has done to erode the moral character of this nation.
Because that'd be hard.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane is the easiest fix ever. You don't want that to happen. You, therefore are responsible.

It really can't be more clear.

 

[impuretrash]

I am guessing it is because parents beat their kids more back in the day, and therefore the kids back then were more submissive.

Got a better guess ??

Not quite what I had in mind but yeah, a general lack of discipline is definitely a big part of the problem.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Great... the balance of our Nation lies in circumstantial & subjective 'preference'.... lol

I have infinitely more trust in what professional and trained jurists say then any of the millions of so-called online constitutional experts.
`

Do you have the same trust for professional and trained local, state, and federal law enforcement officers in FL?

 

[impuretrash]

If conservatives are to blame, then why didn't we have school shootings back when America was more conservative?

It's conservative policy that put a gun in this kid's hands.

Americans have owned guns since this country was founded. So I ask again, why didn't we have school shootings when the country was more conservative?

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

You haven't explained anything. There is no conservative policy of "putting guns in hands". It's fully up to the individual whether or not they want to own one.

You want to take that right away.
Because it's an easy fix.
Instead of taking a look at what the left has done to erode the moral character of this nation.
Because that'd be hard.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane is the easiest fix ever. You don't want that to happen. You, therefore are responsible.

It really can't be more clear.

I don't? Could have fooled me.

This thread is about how "evolved" societies shouldn't have this problem. School shootings are just a symptom of a corrupt, immoral, nihilistic society. Remind me which political ideology has dominated the social sphere since the 60s?

 

[Marion Morrison]

There's always a reluctant group that lags behind. They're called conservatives.

If conservatives are to blame, then why didn't we have school shootings back when America was more conservative?

It's conservative policy that put a gun in this kid's hands.

Americans have owned guns since this country was founded. So I ask again, why didn't we have school shootings when the country was more conservative?

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

You haven't explained anything. There is no conservative policy of "putting guns in hands". It's fully up to the individual whether or not they want to own one.

You want to take that right away.
Because it's an easy fix.
Instead of taking a look at what the left has done to erode the moral character of this nation.
Because that'd be hard.

And really the root cause of the problem, and a hard job to do to fix it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A "societally evolved" nation wouldn't have school shootings.

There's always a reluctant group that lags behind. They're called conservatives.

If conservatives are to blame, then why didn't we have school shootings back when America was more conservative?

We did. We have had school shootings for almost 170 years.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

That is an ad hom, a violation of the rules (noted and reported) and absolutely false. List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

If conservatives are to blame, then why didn't we have school shootings back when America was more conservative?

It's conservative policy that put a gun in this kid's hands.

Americans have owned guns since this country was founded. So I ask again, why didn't we have school shootings when the country was more conservative?

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

Shifting the burden. Fallacy.

There is no burden to shift, dope. I was clear and concise in my point. Trashman was not.

yiosthey shifted the burden, wrongly, and impuretrash won't follow or admit the facts. We have had school shootings since the 1840s.

 

[impuretrash]

It's conservative policy that put a gun in this kid's hands.

Americans have owned guns since this country was founded. So I ask again, why didn't we have school shootings when the country was more conservative?

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

Shifting the burden. Fallacy.

There is no burden to shift, dope. I was clear and concise in my point. Trashman was not.

yiosthey shifted the burden, wrongly, and impuretrash won't follow or admit the facts. We have had school shootings since the 1840s.

Sorry but the majority of those don't count and you know it. You're desperate to avoid confronting the moral degeneracy the left has introduced into this country because if the tide turns in the other way, you're afraid you might have to stop being a piece of shit excuse for a human.

 

[Votto]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

Wait....wut?

Trump is Hitler so we should support the government taking all our guns?

Sound crazy to me.

The gun issue is not just the fear that a government would become tyrannical. It is the desire to defend yourself against other citizens who may not be law abiding and have assault weapons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americans have owned guns since this country was founded. So I ask again, why didn't we have school shootings when the country was more conservative?

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

Shifting the burden. Fallacy.

There is no burden to shift, dope. I was clear and concise in my point. Trashman was not.

yiosthey shifted the burden, wrongly, and impuretrash won't follow or admit the facts. We have had school shootings since the 1840s.

Sorry but the majority of those don't count and you know it. You're desperate to avoid confronting the moral degeneracy the left has introduced into this country because if the tide turns in the other way, you're afraid you might have to stop being a piece of shit excuse for a human.

You made a statement about school shootings that I proved was false: your denial means nothing. When you discuss "the left" and moral degeneracy, you are leaving out the right and its "moral degeneracy." Your choice of language and your intellectual dishonesty reveal that you are a moral deviant.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's conservative policy that put a gun in this kid's hands.

Americans have owned guns since this country was founded. So I ask again, why didn't we have school shootings when the country was more conservative?

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

You haven't explained anything. There is no conservative policy of "putting guns in hands". It's fully up to the individual whether or not they want to own one.

You want to take that right away.
Because it's an easy fix.
Instead of taking a look at what the left has done to erode the moral character of this nation.
Because that'd be hard.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane is the easiest fix ever. You don't want that to happen. You, therefore are responsible.

It really can't be more clear.

I don't? Could have fooled me.

This thread is about how "evolved" societies shouldn't have this problem. School shootings are just a symptom of a corrupt, immoral, nihilistic society. Remind me which political ideology has dominated the social sphere since the 60s?

No. It's a symptom of ridiculous gun policy.

 

[bendog]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

The 2nd Amendment was not a check against Tyranny of the Government of the People. It was for the Militia's to always have their weapons with them and to be well trained in the art of military maneuvers and drills. Each State had one. They were ultimately under control of the CiC. Technological advances have rendered the Citizen Militia's obsolete and replaced them with the National Guard. So in a way yes things have evolved. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to re-write the Amendment and ignore bit about the Militia and it's value in a free state and granted the people a limited right to certain weapons.

Clearly impossible to do in this climate but I think it needs to be re-written to clearly define the peoples rights.

State militas were ultimately under the control of the feds, but the States appointed the officers. Which I think in theory would prevent the congress calling out ten militas to impose tyranny on three states.

Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) states:

“Congress shall have the power to: provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

A fair point against the OP's assertion that the 2nd was intended to thwart tyranny from our own government.

I posted because there is a danger of misstating, and deflecting, the true importance of the 2nd to today's world. Anyone who thinks their right to an AR-15 or whatever is connected to some notion of "THE PEOPLE" rising up against a tyrannical federal government is mistaken. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were given congressional protections to thwart what the Founders feared the federal govt might become, which never actually happended. The Founders feared a Federal government might use either a standing army, which was viewed as paid mercenaries, or a group of some states to deny freedoms specified in the BoR. It's not a coincidence that the 2nd is part of the BoR.

Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion made it very clear that the 2nd was not a means citizens could use to avoid a legally enacted law. There is no provision in the Const or BoR for rebellion. The right of the states to nullify a federally enacted law was a separate issue, and the nullification crisis, and supremacy of federal law, set up the crisis that led to the civil war. And Buchanan is generally considered the worst potus ever because he failed to find a compromise to let states control their economies while allowing for federal laws to have supremacy over state law. Reagan used states rights as a dog whistle to racists in the South, but really what he was about was trying to remove the fed govt from its encroachment in the new deal and 60s in terms of education, healthcare, marriage, etc that until 1932 were strictly left to states. Reagan was not saying, "get yer AR-15s an pertect yer liberty."

Today there is a danger that governments like Wash DC and Chicago will take away our rights to defend our homes from invasions by criminals. That's the issue. The rest of it may interest some people who like history, but that's it. There are some interesting parallels with English common law, and their Civil War, but again, that's just something for people who like history.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

The 2nd Amendment was not a check against Tyranny of the Government of the People. It was for the Militia's to always have their weapons with them and to be well trained in the art of military maneuvers and drills. Each State had one. They were ultimately under control of the CiC. Technological advances have rendered the Citizen Militia's obsolete and replaced them with the National Guard. So in a way yes things have evolved. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to re-write the Amendment and ignore bit about the Militia and it's value in a free state and granted the people a limited right to certain weapons.

Clearly impossible to do in this climate but I think it needs to be re-written to clearly define the peoples rights.

State militas were ultimately under the control of the feds, but the States appointed the officers. Which I think in theory would prevent the congress calling out ten militas to impose tyranny on three states.

Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) states:

“Congress shall have the power to: provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

A fair point against the OP's assertion that the 2nd was intended to thwart tyranny from our own government.

I posted because there is a danger of misstating, and deflecting, the true importance of the 2nd to today's world. Anyone who thinks their right to an AR-15 or whatever is connected to some notion of "THE PEOPLE" rising up against a tyrannical federal government is mistaken. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were given congressional protections to thwart what the Founders feared the federal govt might become, which never actually happended. The Founders feared a Federal government might use either a standing army, which was viewed as paid mercenaries, or a group of some states to deny freedoms specified in the BoR. It's not a coincidence that the 2nd is part of the BoR.

Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion made it very clear that the 2nd was not a means citizens could use to avoid a legally enacted law. There is no provision in the Const or BoR for rebellion. The right of the states to nullify a federally enacted law was a separate issue, and the nullification crisis, and supremacy of federal law, set up the crisis that led to the civil war. And Buchanan is generally considered the worst potus ever because he failed to find a compromise to let states control their economies while allowing for federal laws to have supremacy over state law. Reagan used states rights as a dog whistle to racists in the South, but really what he was about was trying to remove the fed govt from its encroachment in the new deal and 60s in terms of education, healthcare, marriage, etc that until 1932 were strictly left to states. Reagan was not saying, "get yer AR-15s an pertect yer liberty."

Today there is a danger that governments like Wash DC and Chicago will take away our rights to defend our homes from invasions by criminals. That's the issue. The rest of it may interest some people who like history, but that's it. There are some interesting parallels with English common law, and their Civil War, but again, that's just something for people who like history.

You're far more patient than I when it comes to explaining things that I believe every adult should already know. I appreciate that you and others take that time.

 

[bendog]

Americans have owned guns since this country was founded. So I ask again, why didn't we have school shootings when the country was more conservative?

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

You haven't explained anything. There is no conservative policy of "putting guns in hands". It's fully up to the individual whether or not they want to own one.

You want to take that right away.
Because it's an easy fix.
Instead of taking a look at what the left has done to erode the moral character of this nation.
Because that'd be hard.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane is the easiest fix ever. You don't want that to happen. You, therefore are responsible.

It really can't be more clear.

I don't? Could have fooled me.

This thread is about how "evolved" societies shouldn't have this problem. School shootings are just a symptom of a corrupt, immoral, nihilistic society. Remind me which political ideology has dominated the social sphere since the 60s?

No. It's a symptom of ridiculous gun policy.

I'm not sure the OP asserted we are somehow "evolved" but if it did, I don't think there's any proof we are more, or less, violent than we were in 1788. Guns are a lot more effective. LOL

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I've explained my point. I suggest you look at other factors at play for further insights.

You haven't explained anything. There is no conservative policy of "putting guns in hands". It's fully up to the individual whether or not they want to own one.

You want to take that right away.
Because it's an easy fix.
Instead of taking a look at what the left has done to erode the moral character of this nation.
Because that'd be hard.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane is the easiest fix ever. You don't want that to happen. You, therefore are responsible.

It really can't be more clear.

I don't? Could have fooled me.

This thread is about how "evolved" societies shouldn't have this problem. School shootings are just a symptom of a corrupt, immoral, nihilistic society. Remind me which political ideology has dominated the social sphere since the 60s?

No. It's a symptom of ridiculous gun policy.

I'm not accepting the OP notion that we've somehow evolved. I don't think there's any proof we are more, or less, violent than we were in 1788. Guns are a lot more effective. LOL

Agreed. Devolved in some ways. Even wild west towns banned firearms within city limits.

 

[bendog]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

The 2nd Amendment was not a check against Tyranny of the Government of the People. It was for the Militia's to always have their weapons with them and to be well trained in the art of military maneuvers and drills. Each State had one. They were ultimately under control of the CiC. Technological advances have rendered the Citizen Militia's obsolete and replaced them with the National Guard. So in a way yes things have evolved. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to re-write the Amendment and ignore bit about the Militia and it's value in a free state and granted the people a limited right to certain weapons.

Clearly impossible to do in this climate but I think it needs to be re-written to clearly define the peoples rights.

State militas were ultimately under the control of the feds, but the States appointed the officers. Which I think in theory would prevent the congress calling out ten militas to impose tyranny on three states.

Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) states:

“Congress shall have the power to: provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

A fair point against the OP's assertion that the 2nd was intended to thwart tyranny from our own government.

I posted because there is a danger of misstating, and deflecting, the true importance of the 2nd to today's world. Anyone who thinks their right to an AR-15 or whatever is connected to some notion of "THE PEOPLE" rising up against a tyrannical federal government is mistaken. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were given congressional protections to thwart what the Founders feared the federal govt might become, which never actually happended. The Founders feared a Federal government might use either a standing army, which was viewed as paid mercenaries, or a group of some states to deny freedoms specified in the BoR. It's not a coincidence that the 2nd is part of the BoR.

Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion made it very clear that the 2nd was not a means citizens could use to avoid a legally enacted law. There is no provision in the Const or BoR for rebellion. The right of the states to nullify a federally enacted law was a separate issue, and the nullification crisis, and supremacy of federal law, set up the crisis that led to the civil war. And Buchanan is generally considered the worst potus ever because he failed to find a compromise to let states control their economies while allowing for federal laws to have supremacy over state law. Reagan used states rights as a dog whistle to racists in the South, but really what he was about was trying to remove the fed govt from its encroachment in the new deal and 60s in terms of education, healthcare, marriage, etc that until 1932 were strictly left to states. Reagan was not saying, "get yer AR-15s an pertect yer liberty."

Today there is a danger that governments like Wash DC and Chicago will take away our rights to defend our homes from invasions by criminals. That's the issue. The rest of it may interest some people who like history, but that's it. There are some interesting parallels with English common law, and their Civil War, but again, that's just something for people who like history.

You're far more patient than I when it comes to explaining things that I believe every adult should already know. I appreciate that you and others take that time.

me patient? LOL I think the OP mixed and matched, but not intentionally. KaiserBill (-: may have intended a discussion of why school (and other) massacares seem to be increasing.

 

[bendog]

You haven't explained anything. There is no conservative policy of "putting guns in hands". It's fully up to the individual whether or not they want to own one.

You want to take that right away.
Because it's an easy fix.
Instead of taking a look at what the left has done to erode the moral character of this nation.
Because that'd be hard.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane is the easiest fix ever. You don't want that to happen. You, therefore are responsible.

It really can't be more clear.

I don't? Could have fooled me.

This thread is about how "evolved" societies shouldn't have this problem. School shootings are just a symptom of a corrupt, immoral, nihilistic society. Remind me which political ideology has dominated the social sphere since the 60s?

No. It's a symptom of ridiculous gun policy.

I'm not accepting the OP notion that we've somehow evolved. I don't think there's any proof we are more, or less, violent than we were in 1788. Guns are a lot more effective. LOL

Agreed. Devolved in some ways. Even wild west towns banned firearms within city limits.

yeah, the folks who view the Second as somehow special and different from other amendments tend to overlook restrictions that were in place in the 18th and 19th centuries. But those restrictions did not limit the means for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. I wish Scalia had taken an extra page or two in Heller to get to that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, mankind is as dangerous today as it was in 1789.

 

[bripat9643]

Has human nature changed? Have evil men stopped assaulting innocent people? Have governments stopped being corrupt? Have tyrants all been eliminated?

No?

Then no we still have a right to defend ourselves and a right to the tools we need to do so

And those tools are the Constitution and its case law.

Funny how our Founders didn't use the constitution and caselaw to fight the British

Apparently the British weren't like the liberal 'progressives' we have today... so enlightened & all....

We had far more freedom under King George III than we do now.

We had far more freedom under King George III than we do now.

^ Simply retarded.

No, it's irrefutable. How much did we pay in taxes to the crown? About 5% of our GDP. How much do we pay to government in taxes now? About 40%

 

[bripat9643]

Keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane is the easiest fix ever. You don't want that to happen. You, therefore are responsible.

It really can't be more clear.

I don't? Could have fooled me.

This thread is about how "evolved" societies shouldn't have this problem. School shootings are just a symptom of a corrupt, immoral, nihilistic society. Remind me which political ideology has dominated the social sphere since the 60s?

No. It's a symptom of ridiculous gun policy.

I'm not accepting the OP notion that we've somehow evolved. I don't think there's any proof we are more, or less, violent than we were in 1788. Guns are a lot more effective. LOL

Agreed. Devolved in some ways. Even wild west towns banned firearms within city limits.

yeah, the folks who view the Second as somehow special and different from other amendments tend to overlook restrictions that were in place in the 18th and 19th centuries. But those restrictions did not limit the means for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. I wish Scalia had taken an extra page or two in Heller to get to that.

What "restrictions" where those? in the 1920s you could walk into a hardware store and buy a Thompson submachine gun.