“ gun control “

[Canuck from Kansas]

No not a call for violence a call to fulfill their oath of office. To protect and defend the constitution. Taking away anything from the bill of rights is an overt attack against the constitution. Far worse than for instance 1/6. It's more in the nature of a prediction.

You said "every gun owner, ..." I don't believe every gun owner necessarily has an oath to office, but I'll take you for your word that it wasn't a call to violence. However, the only way the second amendment could be repealed is via a constitutional amendment, which by definition is constitutional, so everyone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution would have to abide by that amendment (though I doubt it will ever happen, as has been mentioned, amendments are very difficult to pass).

 

[Rob Allen]

Rob, I think you need to understand that 1/6 was in fact an overt attack on the Constitution in the form of attempting to over-throw our Constitutional form of government by preventing Congress from performing its Constitutionally mandated duty. I'm not sure what else it could rationally be called because it no way resembled "legitimate government discourse" as described or alleged by certain members of the House of Representatives.

I am not saying 1/6 was legitimate government discourse. I am saying that getting rid of anything in the bill or rights is very far worse.

 

[charles sullivan]

This is getting off track a bit, but I'm compelled to respond that you're maligning the founders a lot, as pointed out by Chromers in his later post regarding "presentism." It's incorrect to describe the nation's founding as an attempt to preserve the status quo when the over-arching act was to change from a royal monarchy to a democratic republic, fully noting that the democracy was reserved to white men who owned property. It's only reasonable and fair to evaluate the development of the Constitution in the context of its time in history.

The founders studied the forms of government of all the most advanced nations in the known world at that time to come up with our form of government. While some of the founders were more enlightened about the moral reprehensiveness of slavery than others, it's only fair to note that slavery had been culturally common and accepted for all of known human history. The idea that slavery isn't appropriate was still a pretty new idea. Similarly, women being the property of men had been a long held cultural attribute as well. To expect the founders to be way ahead of their time on every human issue would be both unreasonable and unreal.

In addition to forming a new and independent republic, I think it's critical to note that the most pressing issue on the founders' minds was national security as a free nation and not slavery and women's rights. The concern for national security - expecting that they could be invaded and conquered by England, France, or Spain - pressured the founders to form a union of all the newly free states for strength, rather than 13 small independent sovereign states or some lesser number of small nations that would be weaker than a nation of the full 13. This is important because it was the driving reason for the numerous compromises that were made with respect to the new Constitution. In order to get "buy in" from all 13 states we got the continuation of slavery and the way a state's population is counted for the purpose of determining the number of its members to the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. No one conceived of a future state called Wyoming, but they were well aware that states with small populations would have disproportionate representation in Congress. And that the reason was so that New York, with its large population wouldn't be calling all the shots as national governance proceeded.

The founders did not turn a blind eye to slavery. Those opposed to it choose to accept it as a necessary compromise to achieve the more important objective of a national unity. I think you already know that the objective was not to form a "perfect union," but rather to form "a more perfect union." I think the result speaks for itself. We have a framework for governance in the Constitution, a document that accommodates change through amendment. Amendment is arduous and difficult. Your later post suggests that was deliberate to maintain the status quo - presumably of slavery and women as property. Reading the Federalist Papers suggest that it is to prevent rapid and radical changes from being made willy nilly by the sure to happen idiot members of government that we would elect from time to time. I admit that it also makes important and necessary changes very difficult at times, to wit: the Equal Rights Amendment was approved by Congress over 40 years ago, and the necessary quorum of states never did ratify it. Obviously it's critical for some of our states to prevent women from enjoying equal rights, but I digress.

Lastly, I don't disagree that Alito is a religious kook, but he's the same justice who pointed out that the 2A right is both a state and an individual right. And he further held that the 2A, like all rights of citizens is subject to reasonable regulation, like when W.O. Douglas pointed out that the 1A doesn't not include the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

All of which brings me back to the current House and Senate bills. Are these "reasonable" regulations necessary and do they unreasonably "infringe" on the individual right to keep and bear arms? At the moment I'm thinking that these bills are over reach and a better alternative was mentioned in a post yesterday. Leave things as they are with respect to nearly all firearms, shotguns, rifles, and pistols. But require a permit to purchase and own an AR or AR style rifle/carbine. This, along with universal background checks and a 3 - 10 day waiting period, would not prohibit the ownership of such a firearm, but would contribute to a significant reduction in their acquisition by the felons and mentally impaired people that shouldn't have them. And that should be the desired outcome, IMO.

The fact is that the form of government that they came up with was unable to end slavery without a war. It was unable to end Jim Crow and second class citizenship until sometime in the last 50ish years. It is exceptionally difficult to change as you point out with regards to the ERA.

The landed white men were the ruling class in the US. They retained their status and for the most part still do. So, they weren't at all for freedom for all, or liberty for all. And that is my point, we can't look to them or the government as they created as a beacon to head towards to find freedom and liberty because it is not there. It was there for a minority of the population but given that today we generally view people other that landed white men as humans deserving of equal protection, we need to look at them and their documents according to what they were. You can call that presentism or whatever, I call it logical.

The proof is in the pudding. A person in Wyoming has far more electoral power than one in Cali. That power is flexed in the form of the Supreme court and unequal representation for the chief executive and Senate. We are still paying for this founding father planned inequity. It's a shitty way to do business to value some humans over others, but that is the case still today. It's how the system was created and how it remains. It remains that way in part because people buy the freedom and liberty bullshit that was written and look past what the actual outcome was. So people are stupid enough to deify Jefferson et al. to the detriment of reason. They created a system that was difficult to change, distrustful of the majority and did not live up to the words that they themselves used to describe it. It's a fairytale.

And so that is my big issue with "originalism". We aren't in 1780 and our issues are different. We can't look to 1780 humans to solve 2023 problems. They don't share present day values unless you value unequal representation, slavery and women as second class citizens. They could not foretell the future. That isn't judging Jefferson and his buddies by todays standards, it's frustration that we can't govern today by todays standards because people think that the standards of 1780 are superior.

 

[Rob Allen]

You said "every gun owner, ..." I don't believe every gun owner necessarily has an oath to office, but I'll take you for your word that it wasn't a call to violence. However, the only way the second amendment could be repealed is via a constitutional amendment, which by definition is constitutional, so everyone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution would have to abide by that amendment (though I doubt it will ever happen, as has been mentioned, amendments are very difficult to pass).

Repealing any of the bill of rights is is an act of tyranny against the American people.

 

[Rob Allen]

The fact is that the form of government that they came up with was unable to end slavery without a war. It was unable to end Jim Crow and second class citizenship until sometime in the last 50ish years. It is exceptionally difficult to change as you point out with regards to the ERA.

The landed white men were the ruling class in the US. They retained their status and for the most part still do. So, they weren't at all for freedom for all, or liberty for all. And that is my point, we can't look to them or the government as they created as a beacon to head towards to find freedom and liberty because it is not there. It was there for a minority of the population but given that today we generally view people other that landed white men as humans deserving of equal protection, we need to look at them and their documents according to what they were. You can call that presentism or whatever, I call it logical.

The proof is in the pudding. A person in Wyoming has far more electoral power than one in Cali. That power is flexed in the form of the Supreme court and unequal representation for the chief executive and Senate. We are still paying for this founding father planned inequity. It's a shitty way to do business to value some humans over others, but that is the case still today. It's how the system was created and how it remains. It remains that way in part because people buy the freedom and liberty bullshit that was written and look past what the actual outcome was. So people are stupid enough to deify Jefferson et al. to the detriment of reason. They created a system that was difficult to change, distrustful of the majority and did not live up to the words that they themselves used to describe it. It's a fairytale.

And so that is my big issue with "originalism". We aren't in 1780 and our issues are different. We can't look to 1780 humans to solve 2023 problems. They don't share present day values unless you value unequal representation, slavery and women as second class citizens. They could not foretell the future. That isn't judging Jefferson and his buddies by todays standards, it's frustration that we can't govern today by todays standards because people think that the standards of 1780 are superior.

The bill of rights defines what America is.

As long the only thing on the table is taking away people's rights then congress cannot have a rational discussion on what to do about gun violence..

 

[Roper]

Here's an update from the Washington Gun Law YT channel.
Lots of pertinent links on the page, including text of the proposed law.

Why is this not on the evening news instead of the usual drivel?

 

[Rob Allen]

Hope that is not a call for violence, if it is, I would ask you to remove or edit your post.

I edited it to be more clear..

 

[Roper]

Cause they were better and smarter men than we have today.. even being slave owners they were better people than exist today.

We do not have a democracy those old dead superior men were smart enough to know that democracy leads to tyranny.

Lastly, I do not worship them. I just acknowledge that they had a great idea.

I certainly don't worship ANY of the utter buffoons in Washington DC.

Or Olympia….

 

[Emily27]

I know I'm pretty new to this forum so maybe I need to learn more about him but is Rob Allen just like an elaborate prank? some kind of social experiment? He talks like someone who would be called a fed in younger circles

 

[Roper]

I know I'm pretty new to this forum so maybe I need to learn more about him but is Rob Allen just like an elaborate prank? some kind of social experiment? He talks like someone who would be called a fed in younger circles

Yeah, you’re new enough and probably too young to know not to call people out. I suggest you refrain…

 

[Rob Allen]

I know I'm pretty new to this forum so maybe I need to learn more about him but is Rob Allen just like an elaborate prank? some kind of social experiment? He talks like someone who would be called a fed in younger circles

Rob Allen is a moderate conservative who cannot apparently keep his mouth shut when he sees things he believes to be wrong especially when it comes to a federal government that already has vastly too much control and wants to control more.
Your better off ignoring him until he talks about fishing.

Talking about yourself in the 3rd person is weird.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

Rob Allen is a moderate conservative who cannot apparently keep his mouth shut when he sees things he believes to be wrong especially when it comes to a federal government that already has vastly too much control and wants to control more.
Your better off ignoring him until he talks about fishing.

Good on ya Rob!!

Cheers

 

[SurfnFish]

You said "every gun owner, ..." I don't believe every gun owner necessarily has an oath to office, but I'll take you for your word that it wasn't a call to violence. However, the only way the second amendment could be repealed is via a constitutional amendment, which by definition is constitutional, so everyone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution would have to abide by that amendment (though I doubt it will ever happen, as has been mentioned, amendments are very difficult to pass).

The Constitution was designed to be modified.
"The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times"
If there was sufficient nationwide support for an amendment to restrict high capacity self loading weapons, as has been passed in 13 states, it would not be an attack on our democracy, it would be a reflection that democracy continues to work for the will of the people.
The key is the magazine restriction. There is no difference in firepower between 30 round magazine equipped AR's or wood stocked Ruger Mini 14's used in the infamous Miami FBI street shootout.
It will always come down to the mass killing ability when spraying high velocity bullets with quick high capacity magazine changes.
As to the 'gun owners responding"...the results of a minority in a democracy rising up against the will of the majority remains on stark display in the federal courts, which are still handing out prison sentences to 1/6 insurrectionists.

The Constitutional Amendments

Since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, hundreds of thousands of bills have been introduced attempting to amend the nation's founding document. But only 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified, out of 33 passed by Congress and sent to the states. See summaries of all 27.

www.history.com

 

[wetline dave]

Rob is a very real person and a conservative one to boot as a few others here are, as am I.

He brings out some good points that you probably dismiss off hand,

But keep in mind that there is more than one way to look at any thing and quite often the resolution is some where between the extremes.

Maybe you need to open your mind and consider at the least what he is saying or are you all knowledge and all knowing so no one else has a valid idea?

Dave

 

[Rob Allen]

Rob is a very real person and a conservative one to boot as a few others here are, as am I.

He brings out some good points that you probably dismiss off hand,

But keep in mind that there is more than one way to look at any thing and quite often the resolution is some where between the extremes.

Maybe you need to open your mind and consider at the least what he is saying or are you all knowledge and all knowing so no one else has a valid idea?

Dave

I also used to be an extreme liberal.
I used to believe that the government should do whatever it had to do to save wild steelhead. Then it occurred to me that it is so far beyond the government's ability to save wild steelhead that my desire to control other people and their property to accomplish that goal was stupid.
Then it occurred to me that the government is pretty much incapable of solving most problems and therefore it's control over people should be limited.. then it occurred to me that. That's what the founding fathers were saying all along. Government inability is why I became a conservative.

 

[Emily27]

Rob is a very real person and a conservative one to boot as a few others here are, as am I.

He brings out some good points that you probably dismiss off hand,

But keep in mind that there is more than one way to look at any thing and quite often the resolution is some where between the extremes.

Maybe you need to open your mind and consider at the least what he is saying or are you all knowledge and all knowing so no one else has a valid idea?

Dave

I'm not against people being conservative nor think I'm all knowing I haven't been weighing in on the original purpose of the thread because I know I don't know enough about the topic, but when he started talking about how if the constitution were ever amended people should rise up against the changes he started feeling to me like a south park character. In any other forums or online communities I've been a part of an account like that would just be a joke account, satirically spouting the most cartoonish opinions.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

I'm not sure what else it could rationally be called

Mostly peaceful protest

 

[Roper]

I'm not against people being conservative nor think I'm all knowing I haven't been weighing in on the original purpose of the thread because I know I don't know enough about the topic, but when he started talking about how if the constitution were ever amended people should rise up against the changes he started feeling to me like a south park character. In any other forums or online communities I've been a part of an account like that would just be a joke account, satirically spouting the most cartoonish opinions.

Maybe you should stick with those forums…

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

I'm not against people being conservative nor think I'm all knowing I haven't been weighing in on the original purpose of the thread because I know I don't know enough about the topic, but when he started talking about how if the constitution were ever amended people should rise up against the changes he started feeling to me like a south park character. In any other forums or online communities I've been a part of an account like that would just be a joke account, satirically spouting the most cartoonish opinions.

Did you miss this part? It's not self-proclaimed.

 

[TicTokCroc]

Why is this not on the evening news instead of the usual drivel?

I don't watch the evening drivel, moved on years ago, have you seen CNNs ratings, they are about to go bankrupt.