National School Walkout

[carpedm9587]

I hope Mz Hogg remembers which side has all the guns...

You know - this comment and the one that preceeded it have been playing in my mind since I read them, and my response was not strong enough. What you have just advocated for is taking up arms against your fellow citizens if they disagree with you and enact laws you do not want enacted. You have indirectly indicated you would be willing to shoot someone on this basis. IMO, that statement itself suggests you should not be in possession of a firearm in this country. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if my original stance (background checks, database, research), isn't too tepid. Perhaps I should be joining those arguing to repeal this amendment and get guns out of the hands of people who think as you apparently do. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that there is a very dangerous subculture in our country, and it is heavily armed and expressing some very dangerous views.

[seer]

And yet the courts have ruled that a woman has a right to privacy, which IS in the constitution. That is the basis for Roe v. Wade, as far as I know. And a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was that it was written to provide for a "well regulated militia." There is also no "right" in the constitution that is considered "absolute" and "without exception." So the disagreement is about where those boundaries ought to be drawn. You appear to be fast to call things "settled law" when they agree with you, and dismiss them as "settled law" when you do not agree with you.

First, no there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, there is protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Roe, can't even get off the ground Constitutionally or historically where gun rights go back to English Common law. It is apples and oranges whether you want admit it or not.

Frankly, I would not be opposed to far more strict laws concerning guns, and a significant reduction in their number. I look around at countries and cities that have taken hard stances on guns and see the results. Hong Kong is one of the largest cities in the world (37th, with NYC 28th and Chicago 114th), and they have extremely strong gun laws. Their murder rate is the lowest in the world (0.2 per 100,000 people). There is something to consider there. I would like to see it researched to determine if such an approach would have an effect here.

That would pretty much require confiscation to get to the number of a Hong Kong. This is why we on my side don't trust you leftists.

Simultaneously, I would like to see reasonable protections for guns used for hunting, sport, and as a tool on places like ranches and farms.

Oh thank you master for letting us keep an old shotgun or too. Can I polish your boots too master?

However, if the majority of us want more control in our country, then that is what will eventually happen. If a vocal minority disagree and take it on themselves to disobey the laws, assuming they are changed, then they will have to bear the consequences of that choice. If they choose to wage war on the rest of the country because we happen to disagree with them, I would say they weren't very American to begin with. That's not the way we roll in America. In America, we respect the rule of law, and the majority does get to have its say now and again. Right now, more and more people are echoing the "enough is enough sentiment." Fight the battle in the courts. Fight it in the legislature. But if people elect to fight it in the streets with their guns, then they have become the criminals they claim they are not, and it does not say a great deal about their respect for the rule of law.

The consequences will be nothing less than civil war. If you are really concerned about bloodshed you should keep that in mind. BTW - the ones taking away a Constitutional right are the criminals.

[seer]

You know - this comment and the one that preceeded it have been playing in my mind since I read them, and my response was not strong enough. What you have just advocated for is taking up arms against your fellow citizens if they disagree with you and enact laws you do not want enacted. You have indirectly indicated you would be willing to shoot someone on this basis. IMO, that statement itself suggests you should not be in possession of a firearm in this country. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if my original stance (background checks, database, research), isn't too tepid. Perhaps I should be joining those arguing to repeal this amendment and get guns out of the hands of people who think as you apparently do. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that there is a very dangerous subculture in our country, and it is heavily armed and expressing some very dangerous views.

Carp I would be just as adamant about taking up arms if our fellow citizens were attempting to take away your/our First Amendment rights. Is there nothing worth fighting for in your world Carp?

[carpedm9587]

First, no there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, there is protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Roe, can't even get off the ground Constitutionally or historically where gun rights go back to English Common law. It is apples and oranges whether you want admit it or not.

The courts disagree with you, as do I.

That would pretty much require confiscation to get to the number of a Hong Kong. This is why we on my side don't trust you leftists.

And the responses I am seeing here are making me think I am not far enough left on this topic. Perhaps, Seer, you are partly responsible for creating the reality that exists. I know I was pretty moderate in my gun stance, but what I am seeing here is convincing me I need to move more to the left and become more of an advocate for some serious legal changes.

Oh thank you master for letting us keep an old shotgun or too. Can I polish your boots too master?

The consequences will be nothing less than civil war. If you are really concerned about bloodshed you should keep that in mind. BTW - the ones taking away a Constitutional right are the criminals.

And you defend the position. I was right. I need to move more to the left.

[seer]

Furthermore, if you read the 2nd amendment literally, the right to weapons would seem to be connected to participation in a militia, which presumably would imply some degree of discipline and oversight. I wonder if anyone has considered doing something like that.

If you read the Heller decision it is not limited to militias, never mind the fact that the Constitution does not tell us who gets to form a militia or not - it is completely open ended. Most of the militias at the Founding were ad hoc groups of men who were not under state control. They were in fact outlaws - according the the ruling British government.

[carpedm9587]

Carp I would be just as adamant about taking up arms if our fellow citizens were attempting to take away your/our First Amendment rights. Is there nothing worth fighting for in your world Carp?

I fight for many things. But I usually fight for people and their needs. I don't threaten my fellow citizens over a thing. I also fight within the laws of the land, and within the spirit of the Constitution. I fight with my vote, and with my donations. I don't threaten my fellow citizens with physical harm because they disagree with me. We have a mechanism built into the Constitution for settling our differences. If a new constitutional amendment is passed repealing the 2nd Amendment, THAT will be the new law of the land - and the question of constitutionality will change. If you then persist in your threats - you will make yourself a criminal. The rest of us will be doing exactly what the Constitution says we CAN do - change it.

And I think it's time I step up my resistance to the NRA agenda. Seer, if a person like you can make statements like this, than there is significant reason to fear the "innocent" and "law abiding" gun owners of this country. Perhaps I have been wrong all this time.

[carpedm9587]

If you read the Heller decision it is not limited to militias, never mind the fact that the Constitution does not tell us who gets to form a militia or not - it is completely open ended. Most of the militias at the Founding were ad hoc groups of men who were not under state control. They were in fact outlaws - according the the ruling British government.

And the Heller decision is a legal decision. We have had other legal decisions reversed when later courts re-examined the issue and believed the first decision was wrong. That is exactly what you and others like you are trying to do with Roe v. Wade. You have every right to try. That right is part of how our government works. And those of us who are concerned about the epidemic of gun violence also have the right to try. You words have convinced me I need to step up my game.

[seer]

The courts disagree with you, as do I.

Again Carp, I can show you an explicit right to bear arms in the Constitution, you can not even show a right to privacy, never mind the right to kill your unborn child.

And the responses I am seeing here are making me think I am not far enough left on this topic. Perhaps, Seer, you are partly responsible for creating the reality that exists. I know I was pretty moderate in my gun stance, but what I am seeing here is convincing me I need to move more to the left and become more of an advocate for some serious legal changes.And you defend the position. I was right. I need to move more to the left.

Why would some old guy like me ranting on the Web cause you to change your position? Perhaps you were always a totalitarian leftist at heart Carp, with the veneer of moderation?

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, I can show you an explicit right to bear arms in the Constitution, you can not even show a right to privacy, never mind the right to kill your unborn child.

The courts agree with you on the former - and disagree with you on the latter...

And the right to privacy can be seen in the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments. They are at least as clear on it as the 2nd is about arms.

Why would some old guy like me ranting on the Web cause you to change your position? Perhaps you were always a totalitarian leftist at heart Carp, with the veneer of moderation?

You are free to believe what you wish, Seer. What is causing me to seriously consider changing my position is that someone who claims to be a follower of Christ can blithely threaten to do physical harm to other citizens over a disagreement on law. Coupled with many of the other things I've heard here, it is convincing me that I need to abandon my moderate position, and become more active on my gun control advocacy. I find myself wondering how many people like me have been pushed off their moderate positions by language such as this. I wonder...

[carpedm9587]

Carp I would be just as adamant about taking up arms if our fellow citizens were attempting to take away your/our First Amendment rights. Is there nothing worth fighting for in your world Carp?

I keep wondering where, exactly, Jesus ever instructed his disciples to love one another, unless someone threatens to take your gun. Then you are free to take up arms against them to protect your firearms. I did a quick search, and I'm just not finding that anywhere in the New Testament...

Oddly, I was under the impression the laws of god trumped the laws of man...

I have to admit, I'm not seeing a lot of consistency here. I find it truly perplexing.

[Starlight]

I keep wondering where, exactly, Jesus ever instructed his disciples to love one another, unless someone threatens to take your gun. Then you are free to take up arms against them to protect your firearms. I did a quick search, and I'm just not finding that anywhere in the New Testament...

You seem under the rather strange impression that the words/actions/political views of the US religious conservatives in this forum are ever influenced by love or the teachings of Jesus.

Love for others is a virtue that atheists in this forum regularly laud, weekly if not daily. The number of times I've seen conservative Christians here advocating for it in the ten or so years I've been posting could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[lilpixieofterror]

If you read the Heller decision it is not limited to militias, never mind the fact that the Constitution does not tell us who gets to form a militia or not - it is completely open ended. Most of the militias at the Founding were ad hoc groups of men who were not under state control. They were in fact outlaws - according the the ruling British government.

[lilpixieofterror]

I keep wondering where, exactly, Jesus ever instructed his disciples to love one another, unless someone threatens to take your gun. Then you are free to take up arms against them to protect your firearms. I did a quick search, and I'm just not finding that anywhere in the New Testament...

Oddly, I was under the impression the laws of god trumped the laws of man...

I have to admit, I'm not seeing a lot of consistency here. I find it truly perplexing.

So you going to become a British citizen now?

[Tassman]

You seem under the rather strange impression that the words/actions/political views of the US religious conservatives in this forum are ever influenced by love or the teachings of Jesus.

Love for others is a virtue that atheists in this forum regularly laud, weekly if not daily. The number of times I've seen conservative Christians here advocating for it in the ten or so years I've been posting could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Cruel but true!

Evangelicals "admonish" in the name of Jesus, which means they can be a viscous as they want and justify it as promoting the word of God.

[Juvenal]

True, if the shooting had just taken place. But since it was over a month ago now at what point does he stop getting a pass for his toxic potty mouth?

I've got this buddy. He went through some crap on October 23, 1983. He'll get over it when he dies. Until then, I'll cut him some slack.