Stop Hiding. Let's vote!

[Accountable]

Pussies of all stripes keep talking gun control, but everyone wants to sneak around the Constitution rather than honoring the Rule of Law. I say it's high time those that think we need to get rid of guns stop hiding like cowards and face the issue head on. We have an amendment process. Let's use it.

 

[Francis]

So Accountable I gather you would like to start fresh with a new Constitution ?

 

[Natasha]

I hope I read the question right, LOL If I didn't, I do NOT support a weapons ban.

 

[Accountable]

So Accountable I gather you would like to start fresh with a new Constitution ?

How on earth did you stretch a challenge to take on the question of the Second Amendment of our Constitution into that??

 

[Francis]

How on earth did you stretch a challenge to take on the question of the Second Amendment of our Constitution into that??

It was a simple question ?

 

[Accountable]

It was a simple question ?

So was mine, except mine didn't come out of left field. How did you "gather" that?

Sometimes I wonder what we could have changed in the Articles of Confederation to make it viable, rather than a complete rewrite. I haven't had the time to do the research.

 

[FoxInSox]

Nea.
No.

 

[The Man]

I voted no I am curious who voted yes and why.

 

[Natasha]

I voted no I am curious who voted yes and why.

I admit, I giggled that the title says "Stop Hiding" but it's an anonymous poll. :tooth

 

[The Man]

i admit, i giggled that the title says "stop hiding" but it's an anonymous poll. :tooth

For sure
:d '..' :d

 

[Accountable]

I voted no I am curious who voted yes and why.

I admit, I giggled that the title says "Stop Hiding" but it's an anonymous poll. :tooth

LOL. I debated with myself about whether to make it public, but some people are afraid to state their opinions even anonymously. A public poll would scare a lot of people away.

I voted Yea so that no one would shy away because they didn't want to be the only one, but also for legalistic reasons. Think you can guess why, or do you want me to just lay it out there?

 

[Minor Axis]

Pussies of all stripes keep talking gun control, but everyone wants to sneak around the Constitution rather than honoring the Rule of Law. I say it's high time those that think we need to get rid of guns stop hiding like cowards and face the issue head on. We have an amendment process. Let's use it.

You've got such a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the Constitution. You think others hide cause they are too scared to say what they think, and you and apparently only a small band of Constitutionalists (true patriots) think the document is written in stone, and are the only ones brave enough to state your opinions? :smiley24:

You and many others have some real issues with the Second Amendment as in you imagine some nefarious characters are trying to repeal it. And do you really think it means and the intent was, carte blanche, no regulation? So by your read, what's happening in this country with gun control, according to the Constitution, do mentally unstable people have a right to bear arms?? Argument number two is that when the Constitution was written, there were musket loaders, not assault rifles. While generally I support the right of individuals to bear arms, my choice would be to rewrite the Second Amendment to reflect the reality of modern technology. If you want to call that repealing the current Second Amendment, so be it. This is my opinion. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[SUP][8][/SUP]

As far as your misleading poll (with no background, no reference to current events, no clarifcations), I voted "no" not repeal, because the way it is presented, "yes" imo implies do away with it and take away the right. I've explained above, that I would support a rewrite of the Second Amendment, and support reasonable and rational means of curbing gun violence in this country.

 

[porterjack]

will you take a vote from a Canadian? Who by his own admission does not understand the history or relevance of the constitution but give n the chance would vote Yea, simply put i see no need for individuials to take up arms - not now you have a professional Army and police force

 

[Minor Axis]

will you take a vote from a Canadian? Who by his own admission does not understand the history or relevance of the constitution but give n the chance would vote Yea, simply put i see no need for individuials to take up arms - not now you have a professional Army and police force

I say that all opinions are welcome as long as they are informed.

The Army and police force represent the State/government. It is believed, considering the way the country was founded, the writers of the Constitution had a fear of government and wanted the people to be able to arm themselves in case government got out of hand. However I do not believe that the Founding Fathers would think that assault rifles were a good thing in the hands of looneys and mass public shootings.

But instead of questioning the levels of mass public shootings, the NRA and proponents of the NRA think the ability to own large magazine assault rifles is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to a point that the type of collateral damage we have been seeing in the U.S. is an unfortunate, but necessary to guarantee this right. Most reasonable people, even NRA members would question this. NRA leadership stands apart from the definition of "reasonable" when it comes to guns.

 

[hart]

Accountable, are you out of your ever loving mind? Cause me think you are being ultra sarcastic and it's for no real good reason. If you can get the bad guys to all agree to shoot folks with rubber bands I'd like to hear how?

 

[porterjack]

The Army and police force represent the State/government. It is believed the writers of the Constitution had a fear of government and wanted the people to be able to arm themselves in case government got out of hand. .

so that goes some way to enlightening me on the reason for the amendment

do people today still have that much fear of state/government that they need to arm themselves against it?

 

[Minor Axis]

so that goes some way to enlightening me on the reason for the amendment

do people today still have that much fear of state/government that they need to arm themselves against it?

The U.S. was founded based on violent revolution, not a peaceful agreement, hence the 2nd Amendment. While most own guns for hunting/sport purposes, IMO if you were to poll the most virulent of gun owners, they fear 1)robbery/assault, 2)social breakdown, 3)oppressive government. It's a mindset. Is it unique to the U.S.? I'm sure there are many other places that fear those things, but most would not associate it with the U.S. unless of course your speaking to a conservative, who believe the good ole days evaporated long ago.

 

[porterjack]

The U.S. was founded based on violent revolution, not a peaceful agreement, hence the 2nd Amendment. While most own guns for hunting/sport purposes, IMO if you were to poll the most virulent of gun owners, they fear 1)robbery/assault, 2)social breakdown, 3)oppressive government. It's a mindset. Is it unique to the U.S.? I'm sure there are many other places that fear those things, but most would not associate it with the U.S. unless of course your speaking to a conservative, who believe the good ole days evaporated long ago.

i get the reasoning and need for the second amendment, it was valid, i dont know that I am convinced it still is. Supposing we did survey gun owners, could we not refute their fear for reasons 1 and 2 - pointing to an armed, professional military or police force, if they view the former as reason three, i think they are deluded, the mindset point is well taken, i believe it to be true. It needs to change

 

[Minor Axis]

i get the reasoning and need for the second amendment, it was valid, i dont know that I am convinced it still is. Supposing we did survey gun owners, could we not refute their fear for reasons 1 and 2 - pointing to an armed, professional military or police force, if they view the former as reason three, i think they are deluded, the mindset point is well taken, i believe it to be true. It needs to change

Take a peak at the U.S. House of Representatives...lots of deluded people. Easier said than done, lol.

 

[Francis]

i get the reasoning and need for the second amendment, it was valid, i dont know that I am convinced it still is. Supposing we did survey gun owners, could we not refute their fear for reasons 1 and 2 - pointing to an armed, professional military or police force, if they view the former as reason three, i think they are deluded, the mindset point is well taken, i believe it to be true. It needs to change

Changing the US Constitution is a major undertaking.. It's called a Rigid Constitution and much different than ours in Canada.

And the fundamental right in the Second Amendment will be fought until the Union comes apart IMO.

This is why I asked Accountable if he was in favor of scrapping it and starting with a fresh one.. Basically it would probably be easier than changing the present one again IMO..