Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss Ban the Second Amendment at the General Forum; A complete whackjob from ThinkProgress wrote this... I'm sure his opinions are his alone and no other Liberal thinks th ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-20-2014, 10:55 AM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,513
Thanks: 2,275
Thanked 36,011 Times in 20,562 Posts
Default Ban the Second Amendment

A complete whackjob from ThinkProgress wrote this...

I'm sure his opinions are his alone and no other Liberal thinks th same things...

It starts with a dialogue from a TV show written by Hollywood writers...And "yes", it goes downhill from there...

Ban the Second Amendment

Quote:
Sleepy Hollow, an absurdly entertaining new show recasting Ichabod Crane as a time-traveling Revolutionary War hero who fights evil with George Washington's Bible, took some time near the end of its first season to address gun rights.

"Crane, remind me to later have a chat about what your founding friends were thinking when they crafted our rights to bear arms," police lieutenant Abbie Mills tells the aforementioned Ichabod.

"There was concern among us that it could lead to perverse consequences," he concedes.

Did it ever. About 32,000 Americans are killed each year using guns (murder or suicide), and a mountain evidence makes it increasingly clear that the wide availability of firearms in the United States bears a great deal of blame.

There is no longer any defensible argument for a constitutional right to own a firearm, if there ever was.

Let's bracket the notoriously confusing text of the Second Amendment, and pretend we were writing the thing from scratch. Why would you want a gun rights proviso? I can think of three reasons, broadly speaking.

1. Guns protect liberty. Citizens have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government, and they need guns to do that.

2. Citizens have a right to defend themselves however they'd like. Gun rights enable self-defense and, thus, save lives.

3. People enjoy guns, and millions of reasonable gun owners shouldn't be deprived of something they love because other people abuse it.

Each of these arguments depends on indefensible factual and/or moral assumptions. I'll take them in turn.

The "right to rebel" argument assumes that armed revolt is the last option available if the American government ever goes Full Weimar. Not only has that never happened in a consolidated democracy like the United States, but that kind of paranoid thinking is itself profoundly corrosive of democratic politics.

What's more, it's wrong. Political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan's book Why Civil Resistance Works puts together compelling statistical evidence that non-violent protest is more likely to attract mass participation and topple governments than its armed twin, especially in the modern era. Protecting gun ownership, it turns out, is a terrible way to facilitate rebellions against the state. That goes double when the weapons protected are handguns rather than automatic rifles, RPGs, and anti-aircraft batteries.

The second argument in favor of untrammeled gun ownership, a right to self-defense, is equally incoherent. For starters, there's no reason that, in a civil society, the right to defend yourself implies the right to defend yourself however you'd like. A basic part of government's job is to limit our ability to hurt others; assuming the absolute right to self-defense constitutes, in Alan Jacobs' evocative phrasing, "the absolute abandonment of civil society."

And indeed, the evidence is very clear that a government that fails to adequately regulate guns is failing in its duty to protect its citizens. A recent study found that, after Missouri repealed its background check law, the murder rate spiked by 16 percent; the researchers tracked many of the killings back to newly purchased guns. Conservative writer Robert VerBruggen double-checked the data, and concluded that "the state's murder rate indeed soared the year after a gun law changed, and there's no other obvious explanation."

It's not just that background checks save lives, however: Guns take them. Contrary to what you may have heard, there just isn't that much scientific controversy about whether easy access to guns helps more than it hurts. Two recent, methodologically rigorous studies confirmed that high levels of gun ownership lead to both more murders and more suicides. A recent survey of the best research on guns confirmed that those two studies spoke for the consensus of gun researchers.

So there's one argument left: the idea that because people deeply enjoy firearms and gun culture, it's wrong for the federal government to restrict it. This is easily the most serious of the three arguments. There's more than a whiff of disdain for "rifle-toting rubes" in the anti-gun argument, and it's terribly immoral to use the power of the government to restrict people's rights merely because you find their subculture unpleasant.

Still, this isn't nearly good enough to defend a constitutional right to gun ownership. The rights you protect in a constitution — rights to free speech and against arbitrary discrimination, for instance — are fundamental rights, to be protected absolutely. They deserve that status because they are so essential to the functioning of a democracy that no majority should be permitted to override them.

Gun rights don't rise to that status. The basic principle of a liberal democracy is that, for laws to be legitimate, majorities must enact them. Setting aside the basic rights protections necessary for majority rule to function fairly, any other determinations about the scope of lesser rights should be set by Congress and state legislatures. Gun rights, then, shouldn't be constitutionally protected.
The last part is funny...as in sad...

First, we DON'T live in a liberal democracy...We live in a Constitutional Democratic Republic...

As far as "for laws to be legitimate, majorities must enact them", tell that to the multiples states that voted against same-sex marriages by public ballot...

What is REALLY profound, though, is his lack of pointing out the process in which Amendment gets introduced to rescind another amendment...

Quote:
1. Propose an amendment

Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment ot the Constitution.
  • Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
  • Two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.

2. Ratify An Amendment

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.
  • Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
  • Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).
of course, the author knows this will never happen, so his plan to get rid of the 2nd Amendment is to simply pretend it doesn't exist...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-20-2014, 12:18 PM
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,739
Thanks: 7,239
Thanked 2,450 Times in 1,679 Posts
Angry Re: Ban the Second Amendment

"Peace Full Protest" what a crock of sh*t the Weimar Republic was indeed a a Rebublic a few years later it was ruled by Hitler and his thugs. Consider the Jews and others having a peace full protest does anyone really think that would have stopped them from being gassed and shoved into the ovens?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-20-2014, 01:01 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,656
Thanks: 606
Thanked 6,724 Times in 4,829 Posts
Default Re: Ban the Second Amendment

The only reason anti-gun weenies and pro-gun control specimens need is this:

Because blow it out your ass!

with apologies to the current internet answer found in some sites--"Because f**k you!"

There can be no intelligent debate with people who insist that the president and his family require a squad or more of armed to the teeth people, but schoolchildren need only a warning sign for psychos to steer clear of schools.

Last edited by Manitou; 02-20-2014 at 01:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-20-2014, 01:17 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 82,274
Thanks: 55,777
Thanked 26,397 Times in 18,902 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Ban the Second Amendment

Although I don't have the eloquence of a Manitou, let me try to address this subject.


__________________
A Wop Bop a Loo Bop a Lop Bam Boom!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
amendment, ban, second, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0