G&R Tactical
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Constitutional Amendments and the revocation of rights

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    3,872
    Feedback Score
    59 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Averageman View Post
    Let me get this straight;
    We've got Federal, State and Local laws that aren't being enforced, but we think a Constitutional Amendment will fix everything and suddenly gun violence (which is already illegal unless in self defense) will suddenly go away.
    Volstead Act much?
    These people are deranged. Every time we have a mass shooting people come out of the woodwork claiming they knew it was going to happen, or that he had already been visited by Federal, State or Local LEO's numerous times and it didn't prevent anything bad from happening?
    The unintended consequences will surely be more violence.
    Don't think you will find a disagreement on this board for sure. But I was curious more to the overall picture, not just about guns.

    In this specific case the other person was talking about implementing Mental health restrictions, etc into the process and having to do so through an Amendment.

    Keep in mind this was also a gun owner.. SMH!
    Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly; the ill deeds along with the good, and let me be judged accordingly.


  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    KCMH
    Posts
    2,426
    Feedback Score
    0
    As to “conditions” of gun ownership as far as mental health restrictions......we could go the phone book route but why bother when anything could be called into question. A woman on her period could be construed as a disqualifying restriction as an example. We would have to go to a mental health professional, family history, lie detector test, the list goes on. What is the absolute end game here? My guess will be the same as everyone else’s, total power, total control. What is the match that lights the fire?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    DFW, TEXAS
    Posts
    3,260
    Feedback Score
    226 (99%)
    Quote Originally Posted by duece71 View Post
    As to “conditions” of gun ownership as far as mental health restrictions......we could go the phone book route but why bother when anything could be called into question. A woman on her period could be construed as a disqualifying restriction as an example. We would have to go to a mental health professional, family history, lie detector test, the list goes on. What is the absolute end game here? My guess will be the same as everyone else’s, total power, total control. What is the match that lights the fire?
    It will be something that would normally be innocuous. Then BOOM, it's on.
    "I have never heard anyone say after a firefight that I wish that I had not taken so much ammo.", ME

    "Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas !", General Sam Houston

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,435
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tx_Aggie View Post
    As AK doug said, it depends on whether you believe rights are granted by government or inherent to being human, that is, God given or "natural rights."

    The idea that Government can grant or remove fundamental rights as it pleases (even through a democratic process) is about as opposed to the concept of Liberty as you can get.
    If rights are “granted” by whatever cabal is in power, they are written on the wind...
    Mala striga deleta est. (The wicked witch is finished.)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5,943
    Feedback Score
    0
    I know the OP wasn't referring to just gun rights, but frankly I would not recognize as legitimate any law/amendment removing my RKBA. That would also branch off to include any law/amendment that could ultimately result in the revocation of the RKBA (like registration). And since the Constitution is not a popularity contest, I do not care if 90% of Americans supported such infringements. Obviously not bowing down to such regulations would make me a criminal, but I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    8,347
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kwelz View Post
    Don't think you will find a disagreement on this board for sure. But I was curious more to the overall picture, not just about guns.
    In this specific case the other person was talking about implementing Mental health restrictions, etc into the process and having to do so through an Amendment.
    Keep in mind this was also a gun owner.. SMH!
    Just something to ponder when someone brings this type of thing up.
    Would we save more lives by "banning" cigarettes, than banning guns? I would argue, yes.
    Would we save more lives by "banning" Alcohol again than by banning guns? Well again, very likely yes.
    I would argue that we might very likely save more lives by banning fatty foods also, but you'll notice in a conversation with an anti-gun proponent, if you go this route, the next steps quickly become emotional and they will say, "but my alcohol, cigarettes and fatty foods don't kill you." That may be true, no one has committed mass murder with a Big Mac, but we subsidize through are tax dollars and insurance payments all of the above listed bad behaviors. To another point, how many of your privately owned guns have committed murder?
    You can't win with these people, you very likely wont change their mind, but you might as well, again, make that point.
    Going to the extreme of changing the Constitution in order to fail at controlling guns and violence seems to me to be an unwarranted extreme, and yes, it will fail miserably.
    I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but, it aggravates me to an extreme to hear this malarkey.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the æther
    Posts
    2,262
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Averageman View Post
    Just something to ponder when someone brings this type of thing up.
    Would we save more lives by "banning" cigarettes, than banning guns? I would argue, yes.
    Would we save more lives by "banning" Alcohol again than by banning guns? Well again, very likely yes.
    I would argue that we might very likely save more lives by banning fatty foods also, but you'll notice in a conversation with an anti-gun proponent, if you go this route, the next steps quickly become emotional and they will say, "but my alcohol, cigarettes and fatty foods don't kill you." That may be true, no one has committed mass murder with a Big Mac, but we subsidize through are tax dollars and insurance payments all of the above listed bad behaviors. To another point, how many of your privately owned guns have committed murder?
    You can't win with these people, you very likely wont change their mind, but you might as well, again, make that point.
    Going to the extreme of changing the Constitution in order to fail at controlling guns and violence seems to me to be an unwarranted extreme, and yes, it will fail miserably.
    I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but, it aggravates me to an extreme to hear this malarkey.

    I get the point you’re making and the framing of such a retort to someone’s wanting to ban guns; however- no you don’t save lives by banning objects or making substances illegal. It just doesn’t work out that way.

    You ban shit and it just becomes more expensive and more dangerous on the black market. Period.

    War on drugs. Failure, no net positives all net negatives.

    Prohibition of Alcohol. Failure, no net positives all net negatives.

    Banning of firearms in other countries. Failure, not net positive all net failures.

    Etc.

    Human nature is pretty obvious and simple. Easy to understand, although enigmatic and bat shit crazy sometimes.

    Humans do what humans do, laws be damned.

    Having the fewest laws on the books with heavy punishment and actually following through on that punishment whilst allowing the greatest individual and societal freedoms is the best recipe.

    Focus efforts pretty much everywhere else but banning shit and we would get better results.

    Mass murder, substance abuse, suicide, crime, et al is typically a product of poor mental health and poor parenting, DNA really.

    But there’s no money or sensationalism in solving problems, only in exacerbating them. Therein lies one of the greater problems. Line your pockets on both sides while stoking the fires of extremism and division- when everyone is healthy and happy, a lot of assholes don’t make easy money and don’t have the type of control they covet.
    Last edited by THCDDM4; 11-11-18 at 21:36.
    We interrupt this programme to bring you an important news bulletin: the suspect in the Happy Times All-Girl Glee Club slaying has fled the scene and has managed to elude the police. He is armed and dangerous, and has been spotted in the West Side area, armed with a meat cleaver in one hand and his genitals in the other...

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    8,347
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by THCDDM4 View Post
    I get the point you’re making and the framing of such a retort to someone’s wanting to ban guns; however- no you don’t save lives by banning objects or making substances illegal. It just doesn’t work out that way.
    Exactly my point.
    It seems easy for some to come to the off logic solution that, "Why don't we just make that Constitutionally illegal?".
    Suddenly the insane, the addicted, the criminals and those who's mental capacity is highly altered by chemicals will miraculously line up to oblige us by obeying our laws,...
    Yeah, sorry, it don't work like that.
    That's the sort of Elite, Suburban, Ivy League, Left Wing logic that is so far removed from reality that it has become dangerous to our Nation.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    22,180
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Someone once said "You only get the rights you are willing to fight and die for", and as uncomfortable as that idea is to everyone who wants to live "free and peacefully", there is a great amount of truth to it. Most of us aren't as "truly free" as we should be, but we are "close enough" that we aren't ready to bet all the marbles just yet.

    The government forcibly extorts money from me in the form of property taxes to educate the children of people who have no business being parents in my opinion. Money is used to fund law enforcement to enforce laws I view as unconstitutional and to perpetuate a legal system that is probably fatally flawed. I am fined every year for not having health insurance but it is still cheaper to pay the fines and my out of pocket medical expenses than it is to purchase health insurance.

    Ironically if the government would stop fleecing me to fund all the services I don't use or don't even qualify for, I could afford health insurance.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wakanda
    Posts
    18,538
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by duece71 View Post
    What about EOs?
    The powers at be know privately owned firearms are the proverbial straw that would break the camel's back. They have rooms full of learned men with PhDs. in game theory that sit around and do nothing but ponder such problems for them. There are EO's, NDAAs, and COG plans that have been on the books for decades. Their just waiting for the right crisis to present itself and or be manufactured to green light these schemes.

    The US is the last bastion of freedom on this planet, the Constitution, and specifically the 2nd Amendment are their last obstacles.




    Quote Originally Posted by Averageman View Post
    It seems easy for some to come to the off logic solution that, "Why don't we just make that Constitutionally illegal?".
    Remember the language of the left, former Harvard Law Review President no less Obama called the Constitution "an imperfect document". They also refer to it as a "living document", i.e. something they view that they can modify to adhere to their radicalism.
    "If gun owners defy Assault Weapons ban, the government has nukes." — Eric Swalwell D-CA

    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •