What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 01:53 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The constitution and the bill of rights are not meant to be a moving playing field.

Funny that it has been changed (i.e., amended) 27 times, including the bill of rights, which was itself a list of amendments to the original constitution. If it was intended to be "written in stone", they wouldn't have included the possibility of amendment. The founders, unlike some people today, realized that times change, and laws may need to change with them.

Jefferson said the Constitution should be modified every twenty years to fit the current condition of the country.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 02:36 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The right to own firearms is a right as long as it remains in the Constitution.
That is certainly a thing.

It's the freedom to own a firearm for whatever reason I might choose.
Why firearms?

Why not the right to own Kinder Surprise?
What is special about your right to have guns above your right to have other things?


(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  I don't believe that I need to concede any of my rights for the sake of others.

It's just a fact of life.
You see something that you really want, problem is that someone else already owns it. You willingly give up your right to take it, because you intellectually understand the value within society of property rights.

The concessions we make might be for the sake of others or they might be for the sake of mutual self interest. If I respect other people's property then my property will also be respected, I won't have to stay home and guard my stuff, I can go to work and feel that my stuff at home is safe.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The constitution and the bill of rights are not meant to be a moving playing field.
It is possible to change it but the very concept of a constitutional democracy depends on it's unchanging nature.
Who cares what they are meant to be. It is your society now, what is it that you want above status quo and tradition and historical purpose?

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  It defines pretty basic rights that put limit on the powers of Government. One of them is that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Many countries exist and thrive without people having this right to bear whatever guns they want. NZ and Australia and UK are free countries, we don't get to carry around pistols into public places, and we don't really care. It is a right we just don't care too much about. Freedom under law to have these guns don't generally get onto the political campaign trail over here, it's not an issue that voters care about.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  Once again if we are in the market for throwing out rights in the name of security then why not throw out the whole bunch of them. It would certainly empower the police and government to eliminate crime. But the constitution was written with an eye toward those mistakes having been made in the past.
What makes USA so different to NZ, Australia or UK?
You guys are more oppressive than my country. NZ was the first country to allow women to vote. We allow abortion, we allow gay marriage now, we allow prostitution, even though we are more restrictive on gun ownership than the US.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  We were and are a country founded on revolutionary ideals and the task that the founders set out to tackle was how to limit the powers of government to ensure the citizenry a measure of self governance.
Your president seems to have much more authoritarian powers than my Prime Minister. We don't have Executive Orders, our laws are debated in parliament. I don't think our Prime Minister can pardon convicted criminals, pardons have to go through parliament.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  If we begin the march toward giving up rights for the false protection of big brother we are headed down a slippery slope.
No, I don't think so, you just need to look at what is happening in other free and democratic societies.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  I would say that resorting to eroding of personal rights is at best the lazy solution.
I differ from most of the gun community in that I support sensible gun laws.
Background checks etc. But I don't think we should mess with the constitution.
Again it's not a question of the efficacy of gun laws. It is beside the point.
I think there is great value in your constitution.
Especially at the moment when you have a President who wants to have all the power and doesn't appear to care that much about your constitution. I also think it makes sense to define a purpose for government and to limit govt power based on that purpose. But for what purpose should the access to guns be kept as a special right, above other rights? How does this support the purpose of your own government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stevil's post
28-08-2017, 02:41 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Kinder surprise are illegal in America which is kinda ironic really, those toys inside chocolate can kill you guys so they're banned here have a Glock instead Laugh out load Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 02:53 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 02:41 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Kinder surprise are illegal in America which is kinda ironic really, those toys inside chocolate can kill you guys so they're banned here have a Glock instead Laugh out load Tongue

Yeah but chocolate originated in Mesoamerica so there are probably illegal aliens hidden inside Kinder Eggs.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like yakherder's post
28-08-2017, 03:12 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 02:53 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(28-08-2017 02:41 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Kinder surprise are illegal in America which is kinda ironic really, those toys inside chocolate can kill you guys so they're banned here have a Glock instead Laugh out load Tongue

Yeah but chocolate originated in Mesoamerica so there are probably illegal aliens hidden inside Kinder Eggs.

Epic, Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2017 05:21 PM by BikerDude.)
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 01:53 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The constitution and the bill of rights are not meant to be a moving playing field.

Funny that it has been changed (i.e., amended) 27 times, including the bill of rights, which was itself a list of amendments to the original constitution. If it was intended to be "written in stone", they wouldn't have included the possibility of amendment. The founders, unlike some people today, realized that times change, and laws may need to change with them.

I find if amazing that people in this context would seriously suggest opening the constitution for revision. If changes to the constitution were seriously opened today.
Reproductive rights? Toast. Abortion would be constitutionally illegal.
Separation of Church and State? Bye bye.
LGBT rights? Gone.
What kind of changes do you think would be made? The one amendment that would be safe would be the second. But religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly privacy would all evaporate.
The whole value of the constitution is to protect the interests of the few from the tyranny of the majority. When you open it up to revision that protection is gone.
Basically all of the gains for minorities have been won on constitutional arguments.
Open the constitution to revision and all those gains would evaporate. There is a reason why it's called a constitution.
It is supposed to be nearly unchangeable. It is supposed to capture principles upon which we base all other laws.
When you open that up to change there is no bedrock.
That is why it is so very very rare and only in the most dire of circumstances.

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BikerDude's post
28-08-2017, 05:16 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 02:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The right to own firearms is a right as long as it remains in the Constitution.
That is certainly a thing.

It's the freedom to own a firearm for whatever reason I might choose.
Why firearms?

Why not the right to own Kinder Surprise?
What is special about your right to have guns above your right to have other things?


(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  I don't believe that I need to concede any of my rights for the sake of others.

It's just a fact of life.
You see something that you really want, problem is that someone else already owns it. You willingly give up your right to take it, because you intellectually understand the value within society of property rights.

The concessions we make might be for the sake of others or they might be for the sake of mutual self interest. If I respect other people's property then my property will also be respected, I won't have to stay home and guard my stuff, I can go to work and feel that my stuff at home is safe.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  The constitution and the bill of rights are not meant to be a moving playing field.
It is possible to change it but the very concept of a constitutional democracy depends on it's unchanging nature.
Who cares what they are meant to be. It is your society now, what is it that you want above status quo and tradition and historical purpose?

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  It defines pretty basic rights that put limit on the powers of Government. One of them is that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Many countries exist and thrive without people having this right to bear whatever guns they want. NZ and Australia and UK are free countries, we don't get to carry around pistols into public places, and we don't really care. It is a right we just don't care too much about. Freedom under law to have these guns don't generally get onto the political campaign trail over here, it's not an issue that voters care about.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  Once again if we are in the market for throwing out rights in the name of security then why not throw out the whole bunch of them. It would certainly empower the police and government to eliminate crime. But the constitution was written with an eye toward those mistakes having been made in the past.
What makes USA so different to NZ, Australia or UK?
You guys are more oppressive than my country. NZ was the first country to allow women to vote. We allow abortion, we allow gay marriage now, we allow prostitution, even though we are more restrictive on gun ownership than the US.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  We were and are a country founded on revolutionary ideals and the task that the founders set out to tackle was how to limit the powers of government to ensure the citizenry a measure of self governance.
Your president seems to have much more authoritarian powers than my Prime Minister. We don't have Executive Orders, our laws are debated in parliament. I don't think our Prime Minister can pardon convicted criminals, pardons have to go through parliament.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  If we begin the march toward giving up rights for the false protection of big brother we are headed down a slippery slope.
No, I don't think so, you just need to look at what is happening in other free and democratic societies.

(28-08-2017 01:44 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  I would say that resorting to eroding of personal rights is at best the lazy solution.
I differ from most of the gun community in that I support sensible gun laws.
Background checks etc. But I don't think we should mess with the constitution.
Again it's not a question of the efficacy of gun laws. It is beside the point.
I think there is great value in your constitution.
Especially at the moment when you have a President who wants to have all the power and doesn't appear to care that much about your constitution. I also think it makes sense to define a purpose for government and to limit govt power based on that purpose. But for what purpose should the access to guns be kept as a special right, above other rights? How does this support the purpose of your own government.


This is absurd. No one has the right to theft.

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 07:35 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 05:10 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  
(28-08-2017 01:53 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Funny that it has been changed (i.e., amended) 27 times, including the bill of rights, which was itself a list of amendments to the original constitution. If it was intended to be "written in stone", they wouldn't have included the possibility of amendment. The founders, unlike some people today, realized that times change, and laws may need to change with them.

I find if amazing that people in this context would seriously suggest opening the constitution for revision. If changes to the constitution were seriously opened today.
Reproductive rights? Toast. Abortion would be constitutionally illegal.
Separation of Church and State? Bye bye.
LGBT rights? Gone.
What kind of changes do you think would be made? The one amendment that would be safe would be the second. But religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly privacy would all evaporate.
The whole value of the constitution is to protect the interests of the few from the tyranny of the majority. When you open it up to revision that protection is gone.
Basically all of the gains for minorities have been won on constitutional arguments.
Open the constitution to revision and all those gains would evaporate. There is a reason why it's called a constitution.
It is supposed to be nearly unchangeable. It is supposed to capture principles upon which we base all other laws.
When you open that up to change there is no bedrock.
That is why it is so very very rare and only in the most dire of circumstances.

That's probably why amendments require a 2/3 majority. If it doesn't seem common-sense to most people, it doesn't pass.

I'd be willing to bet that every example you've presented here could not garner 67% support. And that means that your objection doesn't really address her point, which is that even the deified Founding Fathers understood that they could not design a governing document that would stand the test of time.

That which cannot bend will eventually break. That is Grasshopper's point, and it is very valid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
28-08-2017, 07:45 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2017 08:59 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 06:37 AM)BikerDude Wrote:  Why do you insist that when it comes to guns a person should only have one if they NEED it.
Why is it wrong to have one if they just want it?

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone wanting a gun just because they want to have a gun. I do, however, have some trepidation when it comes to someone who would feel to compelled to ask me "Why is it wrong?" when I don't think there's anything wrong. There's something shifty about someone who would even ask me that question. .... just my read.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-08-2017, 08:34 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(28-08-2017 05:16 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  This is absurd. No one has the right to theft.
How do you determine what are your base level of rights?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: