Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[tonyz]

Some Brits comment on their experiences with gun control in the short YouTube vid below.

BLUF, beware liberal politicians and sympathizers bearing false promises of security.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ce5cJ...%3Dce5cJ3JpGnA

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Could the Second Amendment be "amended" - by the process(es) outlined in the Constitution? I think that is more the point Richard was making... perhaps not, I'm sure he'll expound at some point.

If so, then why not the 1st Amendment as well...... Oh what a slippery slope we travel when we start to dabble with changes......

[SF18C]

Originally Posted by ddoering

If so, then why not the 1st Amendment as well...... Oh what a slippery slope we travel when we start to dabble with changes......

Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by ddoering

If so, then why not the 1st Amendment as well...... Oh what a slippery slope we travel when we start to dabble with changes......

I'm not advocating, just pointing out the possibility. As Dusty says, that seems to be the direction "they" are heading. "They" also seem to like the 1st Amendment (for "their" stuff, anyway), so "they" might not want to meddle with it as soon as "they" might with the 2nd.

2/3 of both Houses of Congress (67 and 290) and 3/4 (38) of the states. While the numbers aren't there now, could they perhaps be there in the forseeable future?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

While the numbers aren't there now, could they perhaps be there in the forseeable future?

"They" could be. "They" re-elected a socialist.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Great, now we have a conspiracy.....

Well, alrighty then.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Sigaba - I will ruminate on your post. You make reasoned arguments for a compromise approach. Unfortunately none of your points address the fact that gun control is as polarizing as abortion - for what I see as many of the same core value dichotomies. The arguments posted in the various threads defending a citizen's right to self-defense using the only effective "equalizers" - GUNS, are overwhelming in their condemnation of the left's "facts", their demonization of conservatives and inanimate objects, and their statist agenda. All of which is totally irrelevant in the current political climate. To illustrate, I'm including an opinion piece that lays out the agenda we're competing against. Welcome to 1858 - all over again.

Although I've not specifically mentioned abortion, I have voiced my belief that America would benefit if participants in debates over polarizing issues took a step back from polarizing rhetoric. MOO, everyone is going to have a point beyond which they're going to say "no." To me, when it comes to polarizing issues, the key is to have discussions that, at best, will develop solutions that allow people to say "yes." Or, at worst, see participants walking away from the table temporarily saying to themselves, "That conversation has given me a lot to think about...and those people across the table treated me with empathy. Some also treated me with dignity, and respect. They aren't nearly as bad as I previously thought."^

In a previous post that proved much more controversial than I intended , I mentioned the role of imagination in dealing with issues that currently seem intractable, polarizing, and divisive. Here's an example of what I mean. There's a growing belief that participating in certain team sports plays a positive role in the development of self esteem among girls/young women. This heightened self esteem, some argue, can translate into girls/young women making better decisions when it comes to risky sexual behavior.*

Would it be possible to match those sensibilities to the present discussion by advocating youth centered team shooting leagues with a focus on "at risk" girls?** Would such leagues reorient the part of the discussion about guns into a discussion about women's health? Might the leagues themselves enable supporters of abortion to think about additional ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Might the young women who participate in these leagues come to understand that, what ever their political views, their economic circumstances, their cultural views, or their race/ethnicity, they had benefited personally from knowing how to use firearms? Might league events provide more opportunities for people of differing viewpoints/backgrounds to interact socially rather than to hammer away at each other politically?

Admittedly, such a proposal would likely generate controversy. The issues of liability and risk management alone might lead to complex litigation. Similarly, some will question the fairness of leagues geared towards a specific gender. Moreover, the proposal itself strikes at the heart of how American civilization acculturates women, if not also men.

_________________________________________________
^ In regards to "empathy," I'm using the definition offered by the late Heinz Kohut.

...[E]mpathy: the resonance of the self in the self of others, of being understood, of somebody making the effort to understand you. . . .But empathy does not mean love or compassion. Empathy can be used decisively for hateful purpose. I figure out where your weak spots are so I can put the dagger in you.*

Heinz Kohut interview with Charles B. Strozier, 29 January 1981, printed as "The Psychoanalyst and the Historian," in Heinz Kohut, Self Psychology and the Humanities: Reflections on a New Psychoanalytic Approach, ed. Charles B. Strozier (New York and London: W.W. Norton, 1985), page 222.
* Dana C. Jack, "The Impact of Sports on Adolescent Development: The Importance of Title IX," Forum on Public Policy, 1:2 (winter 2005): 153-159; Kathleen E. Miller, et al, "Athletic Participation and Sexual Behavior in Adolescents: The Different Worlds of Boys and Girls," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39:2 (June 1998): 108-123.
** I'm not talking merely about girls in the "inner city."

[Richard]

MOO, but this is the only part of the Constitution which was not brought about by compromise and the only part which should not be subject to amendment.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The rest of that foundational document, as well as its ratified amendments, are open to the amendment process as has always been the case since its adoption on 17 Sep 1787 and its going into effect on 4 Mar 1789 - as "We the people" determine it to be fit and proper...and to argue otherwise is, also IMO, contrary to why the so-called "Founders" included an amending process in the first place.

Richard

[Streck-Fu]

......

[Streck-Fu]

That is the Preamble.....Not quite the Constitution itself. Wouldn't that be similar to only counting on the introduction to a history book?

.and to argue otherwise is, also IMO, contrary to why the so-called "Founders" included an amending process in the first place.

As you know, the Bill of Rights themselves are amendments to the Constitution itself and only exist due to the efforts of the Anti-Federalists. The Federalist believed that simply defining the powers of the federal government, along with the diligence if the states and people, would be enough to prevent that government form expanding power.
The Anti-Federalists were not so trusting and wanted specific rights defined that could not and must not be restricted by this new government.
Under this pretense, it is not intended for any of the first 10 amendments to be overturned or retracted.

Originally Posted by James Madison

"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example... of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness."

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Richard

MOO, but this is the only part of the Constitution which was not brought about by compromise and the only part which should not be subject to amendment.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The rest of that foundational document, as well as its ratified amendments, are open to the amendment process as has always been the case since its adoption on 17 Sep 1787 and its going into effect on 4 Mar 1789 - as "We the people" determine it to be fit and proper...and to argue otherwise is, also IMO, contrary to why the so-called "Founders" included an amending process in the first place.

Richard

Interesting exclusion and even more so your use of the qualifier: should not

I disagree with the exclusion part and otherwise agree that the entire document is subject to amendment.

Yes my brothers - this wonderful parchment is subject to the whims of the 2/3 majority and we must be very cautious and even more judicious whenever we consider such - especially in the low-information, attention-deficit environment we find ourselves in.

Just because one can doesn't mean one should!

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by MR2

Yes my brothers - this wonderful parchment is subject to the whims of the 2/3 majority and we must be very cautious and even more judicious whenever we consider such - especially in the low-information, attention-deficit environment we find ourselves in.

Just because one can doesn't mean one should!

Looks like some Old Goats agree with you:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

”The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
~Thomas Jefferson

”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.”
~Benjamin Franklin


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence's and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry


”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

That is the Preamble.....Not quite the Constitution itself. Wouldn't that be similar to only counting on the introduction to a history book?

So the preamble is not a fixed component of the Constitution as set forth by those who created it and adopted by those who ratified it? Interesting.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...stitution.html

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

As you know, the Bill of Rights themselves are amendments to the Constitution itself and only exist due to the efforts of the Anti-Federalists. The Federalist believed that simply defining the powers of the federal government, along with the diligence if the states and people, would be enough to prevent that government form expanding power. The Anti-Federalists were not so trusting and wanted specific rights defined that could not and must not be restricted by this new government. Under this pretense, it is not intended for any of the first 10 amendments to be overturned or retracted.

So, in your opinion, an amendment to the Constitution is not subject to the same rules for amending as is the base document itself? How interesting.

Richard

[Streck-Fu]

Not my opinion. It was the stated purpose by those whom wrote it.

I guess they could have called it the Bill of Whims.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Not my opinion. It was the stated purpose by those whom wrote it.

I guess they could have called it the Bill of Whims.

It could just turn out to be just that!