How To Argue For Gun Control.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

If you know why Madison wrote the Second Amendment, you'd know why gun control and the Second Amendment are mutually exclusive.

Can I be supportive of the Fourth Amendment but be OK with random and warrantless home inspections for guns?

 

I think the founding fathers intended for each house to have a musket. Weapons have become more advanced. It's not reasonable to insist that the second amendment is infallible.

Isn't our constitution several hundred years old? Same as the federalist papers. And the second amendment.

That's another thing. It IS subject to change, and was designed for change; hence the term amendment.

In California we have a law that addressed gun control on the ballot. Proposition 63 was successfully passed. It mitigates the purchase of ammunition and bans the use of extended magazines.

 

I know Heller.

A serious fallacy of law is the concept of stare decisis. Stare decisis assumes that prior decisions are correct. If we were to accept stare decisis were controlling, Dred Scott and Plessey would be controlling. Stare decisis ought to be immediately purged from our law, for it assumes prior decisions are correct.

Rights are absolute. If they are not, they're privileges. If we fail to protect and defend our rights, we'll all become slaves in the country our Founders created based upon maximum individual liberty and minimal government.

We know why Madison wrote the Second Amendment. We also know that there is only one way to amend the constitution. No court has authority to amend the constitution. Article V explicates how the United States Constitution can be amended.

Make no mistake, our Fourth Amendment has also been undermined. I say NO! If government wants to abridge our Fourth Amendment (asset forfeiture), it must do so according to Article V of the United States Constitution.

The US Supreme Court has become patsy for our elected representatives. Just as James Marshall set up Marbury, our representatives have illegally deferred to the US Supreme Court as a way to strip us of our rights and liberties while according then (representatives) plausible deniability.

We need to start impeaching activist justices. They have no constitutional authority to create law. Only congress can create law

 

Two of the biggest morons to ever draw a taxpayers' paycheck are Ginsburg and Sotomayor. If either told me water is wet, I'd verify.

 

Arguably the greatest invention was Gutenberg's printing press. It also compromised religions' control over their congregations. Prior to the printing press, maybe 10% of the world's population was literate. Gutenberg accorded everyone literacy. Hence, people no longer had to rely upon clergy for interpretation of the Bible. People could read the word of God for themselves.

The same is true for our constitution. We don't need nine governmental appointees (justices), who are as political as politicians, to tell us what is in our constitution. We can read it for ourselves.

 

soulcompromise,

You're wrong. Madison wrote the Second Amendment as a means of last resort to prevent tyranny. The only purpose of the Second Amendment is to give us ability to prevent a tyrannical dictator from seizing control of our country. It has nothing to do with duck hunting, target shooting, collecting, etc. When you think of the Second Amendment, think securing liberty.

This doctor knew why Madison wrote the Second Amendment, and the senators to whom she was addressing knew that she knew why Madison wrote the Second Amendment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Without the Second Amendment, we'd have to rely upon politicians' promises that they'd preserve our constitutional republic. The Second Amendment assures their promises.

 

Here is a edited old post

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

As several people here have implied here at one time or another, the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this a justified and come to their defence or seen it as just more proof that the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?

Think about US history, did the Native American that fought back against double dealing US governments get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbor and shot at the police would they have got general popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy, would people have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such a witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

And then there is the question of what ‘tyranny’ many of the pro-gunners are afraid of and what ‘liberty’ are they defending?

I saw some interviews with some tea party gun owners at the height of that movement and they hinted that they would ‘defend’ America against the lefties taking over and imposing Un-American socialist ideas.


I mean the demographic of gun owners indicate that the majority are right wing politically I wonder what would happen if that began to change and socialists began to become the majority, I get the feeling that many in the right wing establishment would then be seeking gun control.

 

[An aside – Gutenberg was a victim of capitalism his backers got him to build the press then took control of his business and left him in poverty.]

The printing press was a great invention but it can be used to spread scientific knowledge (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, The principles of relativity) or fairytales (Kinder- und Hausmärchen, the bible) or political ideas (Mein Kampf, The communist manifesto) or downright lies.

In that it is very like the internet.

Thing is yes it can let people read things for themselves and allows them to interpret what a fairytale or theory might mean for themselves but that doesn’t necessarily mean their interpretation is correct especially when such people can’t defend their ideas from rational and reasonable criticism.

Thing is that someone can be educated to read but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have the knowledge or been educated to think in a tolerant, empathetic, objective, reasonable and rational way.

Someone could read Mein Kampf and go off to gas Jews or reject it as the idiotic ranting of a nutter, they could read the bible as a moral fairytale or as the literal word of a god and go off and burn witches, lock up gay or kill people for working on Sundays.

And in the computer age people can dismiss the stuff pumped out by such things as Alex Jones’ Infowar as rubbish or they can see it as ‘true’ and decry all lefties and liberals as the willing puppets of the New World Order that wants to destroy America.

 

Extremism is logical fallacy and a very common tactic of leftists.

 

You sound rather extreme.

 

Godwin at work.

Don't mention the Holocaust without Jewish complicity.

The Judenrat were Jewish.

There were 150,000 Jews in the Nazi Army.

The Death Camps were model after Genrikh Yagoda's Soviet death camps. Yagoda was Jewish. He murdered at least 10 million Christians.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE

 

Lug

Why?

And what is this obsession you seem to have with Jews?

Anyway I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s noticed you still haven’t presented any rational or reasonable counter arguments to the criticisms of your views.

 

Balbus,

I have no obsession with anyone.

Why would you lie that I do?

Lying is a leftist tactic.

You might be anti-Semitic.

 

Lug

Oh and now you are obviously evading – can you present any rational or reasonable counter arguments to the criticisms of your views, if not why not?

 

Balbus,

Tell about the cause of your anti-Semitism. Please don't be evasive.

Do your anti-Semitic beliefs extrapolate to other races?

 

Lug

What the hell are you going on about, I’ve expressed no ‘anti-Semitism’ are you sure you don’t need to read the post again catch up a bit or you could try having a lie down and have a rest?