You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Dude stole half of Stanhope’s material
What point do you dispute the most?
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: US Politics Thread
The interesting thing is the USA constitution is a case study in what is good and bad about enshrining rights in a constitution.
The positives are:
* The legislature can't just go crazy and enact wacky stuff. Well it can - but it might be taken to task for it.
The negatives are:
* The definition of what those rights mean can extend further than may have been intended. For example the right to free speech in the usa extends to a bunch of actions not just what you say. Working out the limits creates a shit ton of legal proceedings and complexity to the law.
* Often rights made sense at the time but make less sense over time.
The second amendment is the poster boy for that last one.
Introduced at a time when America faced a legitimate threat of land invasion from other nations, when the lack of communication would make it up to the local community to fend off a front line assault until reinforcements could come. Introduced at a time when there was a very limited police force and when due to isolation it might legitimately fall to a property owner to protect his family and assets alone. In these circumstances the founders considered that it was right to let civilians have firearms - which by modern standards would be antique weapons that take many moments to reload - so long as those civilians were well regulated.
THAT was the intent and why you have the 2nd ammendment.
Today we live in a world where America has the largest and most obscenely powerful army in history. There is zero chance of any nation launching a ground invasion and if they did - they would be wiped from the map in seconds. In the absurdist event that something like that did happen - reinforcements would be able to be sent in moments due to real time monitoring - and instantaneous communication. The distances between areas are covered in moments by jets and ariel weapons the founding fathers could never have even imagined.
Meanwhile If a property owner is undefended - he need only call the modern police department - a highly regulated force of thousands. Meanwhile the weapons available to buy are many many times more powerful than the muskets of old - they reload faster, shoot further, more accurate etc etc etc.
Basically the scenario the founding fathers faced when they enacted that right has absolutely no relationship anymore to the world we live in.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: US Politics Thread
If they get assault rifles banned they'll go after handguns, too. They want censorship, they want to ban certain films, video games and TV shows. They already have shown they want to ban free speech. Look at college campuses. If you honestly think this ends at a simple "common sense" gun law, you're either naive, stupid or part of the problem.
Why doesn't the pro choice movement give an inch on abortion? Because they know the other side doesn't want a compromise, but to inflict the first cracks to eventually ban abortion completely. The constitution does NOT protect woman's right to have an abortion.
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: US Politics Thread
Fine, you keep your guns, and innocent lives will continue to get lost, all at the cost of your country’s stubbornness and stupidity.
And you miss the point of the gun ban in Australia that worked. You CAN still own a gun if you want to, it is just legislated that you need to be a registered, licensed, sane, person to own a gun. And look what happened from that. Zero mass shootings since that happened. Can’t argue facts.
