Started Mar 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
lownine Forum Pro • Posts: 10,956
Re: Lownine of course

Christoph Stephan wrote:

Chato wrote:.

It's the law of the land. And this particular law requires two thirds of the States to repeal.

Let us assume that you are right. That guns make "no sense." Are you advocating the illegal over throw of the Constitution to get your way? If the Constitution is just fish wrapping, then what Oregon did should stand. They outlawed the religion of Islam. Why not? It was a popular vote of 70 percent of the population. Isn't it not a "tyranny" that the Federal Courts declared their law "Unconstitutional?"

But if the Constitution is ‚Äčnothing, ‚Äčthen cannot that law stand?

And what is this business about due process and trial by jury? Should we apply that to people who are obviously guilty?

And why should the government be required to get a warrant to search your house if we know your a criminal?

If one part of the Constitution can be treated as fish guts wrapping, why not the rest of it?


You Americans (or your forefathers) manouvered yourself quite into a difficult situation by putting this right to own guns into the constitution, equal to other more fundamental rights which are the tenet of EVERY modern deocracy, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and which of course should be protected. So you probably have to go through the commotion of getting a two thirds majority to repeal it.

I am quite happy that in Germany, the UK etc. it is no engrained into the constitution.

That does not change the fact that I personally find the reasoning behind it ridiculous in modern times. To fulfil it, would require regular military training, owning a gun is not enough. Also, to be on par with a potentially oppresive govermnent, citizens should probably own surface to air missiles, grenade launchers etc.... as well.

I couldn't help but remember the opening of Flight of the Intruder.  The main character, an A-6 pilot, loses his Bombardier/Navigator to a guy standing in a rice paddy making a lucky shot with a rifle.  On the other hand, no one bothered to develop a "Wild Weasel" equivalent to defend against small arms.

Also, people should have proper practise and experience of non-violent methods of protest and resistance, the 2nd ammendment alone creates too much focus on violence. As I stated proviously, there it not even unanimous consent of what constitutes tyranny.

If a really great number of Americans like their guns so much because they enjoy hunting, sports shooting - the right of gun-ownership should be more embedded into the "pursuit-of-happiness" clause. This would create a less violent, more freedom-loving premise - and would also make itmore difficult for goverment or property owners to restrict other freedoms unnecessarily - prohibition or even photography, or the right to roam - comes to mind.

But thats just my personal opinion I state, making use of the first amendment. If I - or others - might get one day 2/3 of Americans (or their law) makers to agree, we might get the law changed. If not - well you have to lie in the bed your forefathers and yourself made. The chances are slim - but without voicing an opinion, they are nil.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow