Con_Alma;1342584 wrote:Why is this important at all to have such a statement or ackonowledgement?

Unnecessary deaths or not, the right is unalienable.

See that's what I'm talkin about! That should be the position of the hardcore pro-gun folks in my opinion.

In the gun control debate pro-gun folks act like we're more secure because of our lax gun regulation. We are not more secure. We are less secure but we are more free.

I am free to walk around with a gun concealed underneath my jacket as is everyone else. But it doesn't make us more secure from homicide. Mere human negligence and error makes the opposite true. And that's fine because what's the saying? Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither???

BoatShoes;1342600 wrote:The most liberal justice on the Supreme Court of late was fine with voter IDs and most democrats would be if there were honest and transparent attempts to help folks who might not have them or to allow other perfectly good ID's like Veteran's ID cards taking place over a reasonable time period.

Plainly transparent attempts to pass "Voter ID" legislation as fast as possible to improve the chances of winning an election is not going to be popular however. :thumbup:

Ah, so voter fraud is okay until it's convenient to prevent it.

BoatShoes;1342602 wrote:See that's what I'm talkin about! That should be the position of the hardcore pro-gun folks in my opinion.

In the gun control debate pro-gun folks act like we're more secure because of our lax gun regulation. We are not more secure. We are less secure but we are more free.

I am free to walk around with a gun concealed underneath my jacket as is everyone else. But it doesn't make us more secure from homicide. Mere human negligence and error makes the opposite true. And that's fine because what's the saying? Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither???

Well, I'm here to tell you that I am "pro-gun" folk and yet I don't own a gun and am pro-gun because it is a right that "shall not be infringed upon". Why it shall not be doesn't matter.

My position has nothing to do with security or freedom. It has everything to do with it being acknowledged and recognized as a right that should not be taken away.

isadore;1342525 wrote:much of the constitution and the bill of rights brillantly written to apply through time, but their are those exceptions
the rules about suing the states quickly changed by the 11th amendment
method of choosing president and vp fixed by the 12th
but other outdated sections linger with us, the 2nd, 3rd and 7th amendment
outdated by events.

Can you please explain how these 3 amendments are "outdated"?

I know that I don't want the government to be allowed to force me to have a federal agent/soldier living in my house (3rd).
I know that civil suits by jury isn't out dated (possibly the full text about it being anything greater than $20).
A person's right to protect their life and home with a fire arm is not out dated either.

sleeper;1342608 wrote:Ah, so voter fraud is okay until it's convenient to prevent it.

There is no compelling evidence of voter fraud but it is nevertheless worthwhile to placate the supposed concerns of our paranoid conservative brethren if it can reasonably be done so without significant disenfranchisement when we apply a utilitarian calculus to the matter.

Con_Alma;1342647 wrote:My position has nothing to do with security or freedom. It has everything to do with it being acknowledged and recognized as a right that should not be taken away.

That sentence indicates that your position has quite a lot to do with freedom...

BoatShoes;1342689 wrote:That sentence indicates that your position has quite a lot to do with freedom...

Freedom may be the result but my view on this issue relates to a respect of the law and constitution. In folds over into ohter scenarios whereby I may not agree with certain existing laws but I adhere to them because they are they law.

My view doesn't stem on freedom or protection as it relates to guns. It is based on the the written adherence to a right that should not be taken away.

BoatShoes;1342684 wrote:There is no compelling evidence of voter fraud but it is nevertheless worthwhile to placate the supposed concerns of our paranoid conservative brethren if it can reasonably be done so without significant disenfranchisement when we apply a utilitarian calculus to the matter.

If there's no compelling evidence, then what's the problem? Why not add a test too? If there's no voter fraud, then no one should be disenfranchised. :thumbup:

Con_Alma;1342697 wrote:Freedom may be the result but my view on this issue relates to a respect of the law and constitution. In folds over into ohter scenarios whereby I may not agree with certain existing laws but I adhere to them because they are they law.

My view doesn't stem on freedom or protection as it relates to guns. It is based on the the written adherence to a right that should not be taken away.

So if we amended the constitution to say that it wasn't a right you'd have no qualms?

haha, good luck getting that amendment passed by the states. California, Illinois and New York may be for it but no way you will ever get 2/3 of the states to agree. It's a liberal pipe dream. You aren't modifying the 2nd amendment.

sleeper;1342716 wrote:If there's no compelling evidence, then what's the problem? Why not add a test too? If there's no voter fraud, then no one should be disenfranchised. :thumbup:

Sigh. The problem is that hastily instituting such a policy because the real intention is to prevent certain groups of people who tend not to have IDs and also tend to vote democrat is to discourage them from voting. There was evidence they would be disenfranchised because they wouldn't have reasonable time to comply with the regulations and that's why the courts were not ruling favorable towards these laws despite the fact that they're ok in principle according to the SCOTUS.

It's also interesting that you're not seeing much action on these proposals from the GOP now that their efforts failed to swing the election for Romney. :thumbup:

Thought this news was fitting for this thread.

What a travesty.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?hpt=hp_t1

Stay on topic. Anymore voter Id talk gets a thread ban

why all the fuss and bother over guns, why don't liberals spend so much time on motor vehicles? Many more times of Americans are violently killed every year driving a car, 2000 pounds of steel traveling at 70 mph is a hell of a weapon.

Prohibition does not work, it doesn't matter what you are trying to prohibit. Drugs, alcohol, guns, it wouldn't work. Unless the federal government is willing to completely usurp power and go door to door and forceably take our guns away from us, you are NEVER going to get rid of them.

Even if you have another AWB for 10 years or whatever, people will just buy up before it goes into effect and horde the guns and ammo until it expires or a 2nd amendment president is elected. 37 states are Shall Issue with Concealed Carry, you aren't getting an amendment passed to ban guns.

BoatShoes;1342800 wrote:Thought this news was fitting for this thread.

What a travesty.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?hpt=hp_t1

random acts of violence from an extremely small minority of people in this country and you are ready to deprive hundreds of millions of Americans of their constitutionally guaranteed rights? What about all those people killed since I've been typing in car accidents or any other kind of accident? Just because it's an evil gun, it makes it more important?

BoatShoes;1342800 wrote:Thought this news was fitting for this thread.

What a travesty.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?hpt=hp_t1

Just wait until we start hearing reports on how this guy was a member of the tea party.

tk421;1342807 wrote:why all the fuss and bother over guns, why don't liberals spend so much time on motor vehicles? Many more times of Americans are violently killed every year driving a car, 2000 pounds of steel traveling at 70 mph is a hell of a weapon.

Prohibition does not work, it doesn't matter what you are trying to prohibit. Drugs, alcohol, guns, it wouldn't work. Unless the federal government is willing to completely usurp power and go door to door and forceably take our guns away from us, you are NEVER going to get rid of them.

Even if you have another AWB for 10 years or whatever, people will just buy up before it goes into effect and horde the guns and ammo until it expires or a 2nd amendment president is elected. 37 states are Shall Issue with Concealed Carry, you aren't getting an amendment passed to ban guns.

Prohibition of guns on a national level has been shown to work in other industrialized countries.

The benefits from widespread ownership of automobiles drastically outweigh the negatives. They are also highly regulated. Other countries without widespread gun ownership have widespread commerce and economic activity. Countries without widespread automobile use and/or transportation are not as wealthy and their citizens do not live as prosperously.

Widespread gun ownership neither makes us more safer or tangibly increases economic activity that would disappear if they were gone. It is also unlikely that they would provide any real benefit in the event if our nuclear capable army was turned against us to eliminate our freedom. Even if so, there are better ways we could supply freedom-loving citizens small arms in that unlikely event.

I do not advocate for a constitutional amendment eliminating the second amendment and don't think it would pass.

BoatShoes;1342800 wrote:Thought this news was fitting for this thread.

What a travesty.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?hpt=hp_t1

A shooting in a state with one of the strictest set of gun control laws actually is evidence for those arguing against you BS.

BoatShoes;1342829 wrote:Prohibition of guns on a national level has been shown to work in other industrialized countries.

you keep saying this as though it has any bearing on this country. Other "industrialized" countries do not have the culture and the constitution that we have. It is written into our very constitution that we have a right to keep and bare arms. The courts have echoed the right for American citizens to carry and conceal guns. The fact that japan or britain or any other country bans guns has no impact whatsoever on this country.

Since you think it would work, because obviously what works for one country always works for another, tell me how exactly you would implement it? Congress is not ever going to pass a law banning guns on a national level. You aren't going to get an amendment passed. The courts have already sided with the citizens rights. So, unless President Obama declares himself dictator and unilaterally bans guns himself, it isn't going to happen. And if that were ever to happen, it wouldn't happen quietly.

BoatShoes;1342829 wrote:Prohibition of guns on a national level has been shown to work in other industrialized countries.

Links?

jmog;1342831 wrote:A shooting in a state with one of the strictest set of gun control laws actually is evidence for those arguing against you BS.

banning guns wouldn't have stopped the tragedy, the perpetrators were clearly in the state of mind where they were going to commit an atrocious act. You don't just wake up and decide to murder people, children included. If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a homemade bomb or something else. Just because a clearly disturbed individual uses a gun in a crime is not reason enough to ban them for the rest of us.

BoatShoes;1342786 wrote:So if we amended the constitution to say that it wasn't a right you'd have no qualms?

Qualms....? No, I would not have an "uneasy" feeling about it.

If it were not a right which should not be infringed upon and guns were illegal I would be following the law and expect everyone else to also.
The point of my contribution in this thread was a response to your desire to have "pro-gun" folk acknowledge something about why their position is what it is.

Mine is not inspired by freedom or protection. We as a nation have adopted this right as one which shall not be infringed upon.

BoatShoes;1342829 wrote:Prohibition of guns on a national level has been shown to work in other industrialized countries. ...

It doesn't "work" towards benefiting the principle that the right to bare arms should not be infringed upon.

tk421;1342833 wrote:... Other "industrialized" countries do not have the culture and the constitution that we have. It is written into our very constitution that we have a right to keep and bare arms. ...

Exactly.

jmog;1342831 wrote:A shooting in a state with one of the strictest set of gun control laws actually is evidence for those arguing against you BS.

I have argued that state by state gun regulation is ineffective in a federal system....

countries with national level gun control have had success.

justincredible;1342834 wrote:Links?

click back a few pages.