CNN Democratic Debate
-
Al Bundy
This amendment refers to both the collective right and INDIVIDUAL right of the people. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."isadore;1758136 wrote:gosh a ruddies, no, they allowed people to have arms in order to form a well regulated militia to repel foreign invasion, enforce federal laws and suppress domestic insurrection. read the Constitution sometime.
The founders knew of the potential danger that individuals would be in if they no longer had the right to defend themselves. Why wouldn't you want someone to have the right to defend himself? -
isadore
gosh a ruddies does it say that in the Constitution. or does the Constitution talk about a militia controlled by the governmentAl Bundy;1758144 wrote:This amendment refers to both the collective right and INDIVIDUAL right of the people. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The founders knew of the potential danger that individuals would be in if they no longer had the right to defend themselves. Why wouldn't you want someone to have the right to defend himself? -
Al Bundy
The Supreme Court ruled that it applies to a militia and to INDIVIDUALS. You still duck the bigger question of why would you want to take away the rights of someone?isadore;1758145 wrote:gosh a ruddies does it say that in the Constitution. or does the Constitution talk about a militia controlled by the government
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php -
isadore
The Heller decision was a misbegotten aberration not reflective of previous decisions going to United States v Miller where it wrote according to your site.Al Bundy;1758150 wrote:The Supreme Court ruled that it applies to a militia and to INDIVIDUALS. You still duck the bigger question of why would you want to take away the rights of someone?
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
“The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 (external link) of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.
Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. Several of the post-Miller lower court opinions are discussed here.
Heller and Citizens United are embarrassments for Court in league with Dred Scott and Plessey V Ferguson.
Scott of course required a Constitutional Amendment to undue its harm, hopefully we will follow the same course with Heller and the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP].
-
Al Bundy
lol....anything to avoid admitting that you are wrong. Back to the question that you have ducked multiple times, why do you want to take away the right of someone to defend himself?isadore;1758166 wrote:The Heller decision was a misbegotten aberration -
isadore
I am no more wrong than the abolitionist were after the Dred Scott decision. Heller is a horrible decision that does not reflect what is written in the Constitution. Guns cost 30,000 American lives a year. They do not belong in a truly civilized society.Al Bundy;1758167 wrote:lol....anything to avoid admitting that you are wrong. Back to the question that you have ducked multiple times, why do you want to take away the right of someone to defend himself? -
majorspark
If only slaves had guns.isadore;1757992 wrote:Your arguments and threats of force mirror those of the advocates of the right to own slaves. -
isadore
if their captors didn't they would be freemajorspark;1758178 wrote:If only slaves had guns. -
Al Bundy
If we didn't have guns, we would lose a lot more than 30,000 American lives.isadore;1758173 wrote:I am no more wrong than the abolitionist were after the Dred Scott decision. Heller is a horrible decision that does not reflect what is written in the Constitution. Guns cost 30,000 American lives a year. They do not belong in a truly civilized society. -
Al Bundy
Slavery existed long before guns were invented.isadore;1758181 wrote:if their captors didn't they would be free -
majorspark
They were held captive by their government. You know those people who are supposed to have guns.isadore;1758181 wrote:if their captors didn't they would be free -
isadore
gosh a ruddies that made the argument by your fellow gun nut not applicableAl Bundy;1758183 wrote:Slavery existed long before guns were invented. -
isadore
these were warring tribal groups in sub sahara africamajorspark;1758188 wrote:They were held captive by their government. You know those people who are supposed to have guns. -
isadore
gosh a ruddies, no, advanced nations with stronger gun regs have lower murder ratesAl Bundy;1758182 wrote:If we didn't have guns, we would lose a lot more than 30,000 American lives.
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Homicide-Rates-for-Developed-Countries-OECD-2011-or-latest-year.png
-
Al Bundy
In the United States, the cities with tough gun laws have the most murders.isadore;1758207 wrote:gosh a ruddies, no, advanced nations with stronger gun regs have lower murder rates
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Homicide-Rates-for-Developed-Countries-OECD-2011-or-latest-year.png
-
isadore
Five states with highest murder rates per 100.000 peopleAl Bundy;1758213 wrote:In the United States, the cities with tough gun laws have the most murders.
Louisiana 10.4 Alabama 7.2 Mississippi 6.5 Maryland 6.4 Michigan 6.4
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
5 most restrictive gun laws
1. California 2. New Jersey 3. Massachusetts 4. New York 5.Connecticutt
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
-
HitsRus
-
isadore
and gosh a ruddies what were they saying in your article states with the most gun deaths least restrictive, states with lower gun death rates have restrictive laws. And what do we see in developed nations with restrictive gun laws. "the American murder rate is roughly 15 times higher than in other developed nations which have much tougher laws controlling private ownership of guns."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html -
Con_Almaisadore;1758079 wrote:gosh a ruddies as lead based paint was by law removed from American homes, so will guns.
I don't think legislation will eliminate any type of problem we have with guns. Similar to alcohol and drugs, guns are a cultural challenge that will remain even with legislative restriction. To truly address gun issues we need to approach the historical culture we have in this country and it's history of guns. -
isadore
the long term culture trend is going in that direction.Con_Alma;1758239 wrote:I don't think legislation will eliminate any type of problem we have with guns. Similar to alcohol and drugs, guns are a cultural challenge that will remain even with legislative restriction. To truly address gun issues we need to approach the historical culture we have in this country and it's history of guns. -
HitsRus
Actually it is not ... While a higher number of people want stricter rules for sales(55%) .. A record number of people DON'T want handguns banned entirely( over 70%).. These are the results of a new Gallup poll. Sorry I can't link as I' m on my phone.... But it's easy enough to look up. Good luck with repealing the 2nd amendment.
-
Con_Almaisadore;1758245 wrote:the long term culture trend is going in that direction.
Now that's interesting to me.
Whereby did you come to that conclusion from? It's culture that will make the biggest impact as opposed to legislation in my opinion. I see it with regards to drugs and alcohol. -
isadore
The fanaticism of gun advocates like the NRA in opposing any near reasonable restrictions on the sale and ownership of guns may produce a reaction as the slaughter of innocence continuesHitsRus;1758261 wrote:Actually it is not ... While a higher number of people want stricter rules for sales(55%) .. A record number of people DON'T want handguns banned entirely( over 70%).. These are the results of a new Gallup poll. Sorry I can't link as I' m on my phone.... But it's easy enough to look up. Good luck with repealing the 2nd amendment.
But the trends I am talking about are not the temporary opinions found in polling but true long term trends that can lead to the end of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment.
‘”The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it’s ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.
According to the latest General Social Survey, 32% of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That’s a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.
The drop in the number of Americans who own a gun or live in a household with one is probably linked to a decline in the popularity of hunting, from 32% who said they lived in a household with at least one hunter in 1977 to less than half that number now.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/10/america-gun-ownership-hunting-rates-record-lows
-
isadore
long term trends have their effect. But at times events accelerate. We can see that in gay marriage issue. It is not that many years ago when it was consistently losing at the polls, and leading politicians in mass opposed it, with the liberal examples of Obama and the Clintons. Now the conservatives who oppose want an amendment to outlaw it look like troglodytes to the majority of the population.Con_Alma;1758302 wrote:Now that's interesting to me.
Whereby did you come to that conclusion from? It's culture that will make the biggest impact as opposed to legislation in my opinion. I see it with regards to drugs and alcohol.
I glad it happened. A Clinton election and a few geezers on the Supreme Court bite the dust, kiss Heller good bye. Not quite repeal of the 2nd but some real regulation. -
fish82
Best of luck with that. :laugh:isadore;1758350 wrote:long term trends have their effect. But at times events accelerate. We can see that in gay marriage issue. It is not that many years ago when it was consistently losing at the polls, and leading politicians in mass opposed it, with the liberal examples of Obama and the Clintons. Now the conservatives who oppose want an amendment to outlaw it look like troglodytes to the majority of the population.
I glad it happened. A Clinton election and a few geezers on the Supreme Court bite the dust, kiss Heller good bye. Not quite repeal of the 2nd but some real regulation.
