But I doubt that the more well known rights are not easily changed, and will never be changed.
The right to bear arms will probable never be changed or amended because the battle will be over the protection of enshrined rights, and unless you can argue that the right puts the nation into dire straights, it won't be changed.
It would be a fight that would never ever get past the supreme court
Maybe. But I don't think the Right to Bear Arms has to be interpreted as all inclusive. What arms to we have the right to bear? If we are allowed to bear long guns and shot guns but not hand guns how is our right being denied?
I know there are those who will argue it is, but I don't think the amendment itself is set up to protect the right to bear any armament you please.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
I get you can't snap your fingers and change the constitution, but burying your heads in the sand over guns isnt working. Clearly.
I get what you're saying and I'm not arguing for the pro gun lobby here. Ask anyone I'm as antigun as anyone here, my posting history would show that.
But in order to change a entrenched amendment like this you have to beat the argument of individual rights to purchase, own and carry firearms and it goes beyond just saying, well look at the mass murders.
The constitute guarantees the right to have these weapons, but it doesn't define the use of these weapons beyond arming militias.
The justice system and the enforcement of laws is supposed to define the usage and protect citizens from the illegal usage of guns. and in the extreme sense the type of guns, that's why you've seen attempts to ban high capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons.
So the only way that you're going to change things is by toughening the laws against the usage of firearms, which means tougher enforcement on gun crimes and increased investigations. You could also argue about the requirements for ownership but that would be a massive court battle because the requirements for ownership would attempt to contravene the right for all individuals without exception to bear arms.
I hope I'm making sense here.
The only other way to limit firearms is to appeal to the gun manufacturers not to release hand guns or automatic weapons for civilian markets, but what makes that tougher is that foreign nations like China and Russia and others don't care about that and export their weapons like crazy via criminal gangs.
In Canada its easier because we have no right or guarantee to bear arms so there's no constitutional argument that can collide with the justice system so you can change the availability of types of weapons by merely changing the legal system and it doesn't impeded on the Bill of Rights.
I'm hoping I explained this right.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I wonder if the 2nd Amendment would still come into effect if a guy had a nuke in his basement. Methinks their constitutional rights would be violated pretty quick.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Not worth it then because it would be tough? Just keep those asinine laws then, not worth the struggle to try and save lives?
WTF? Sure it's worth it. I was pointing out the requirements to make it happen to bring some realism to the conversation.
Why the hostility?
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Maybe. But I don't think the Right to Bear Arms has to be interpreted as all inclusive. What arms to we have the right to bear? If we are allowed to bear long guns and shot guns but not hand guns how is our right being denied?
I know there are those who will argue it is, but I don't think the amendment itself is set up to protect the right to bear any armament you please.
But because the right to bear arms isn't clearly defined, and any attempt to change or define the right to bear arms will be heavily scrutized by the Supreme Court its a dead issue.
Basically the closest that they came was saying that the arms had to be reasonable in terms of the aims of a militia being able to be well armed, which of course has shifted from muskets and rat rifles to modern day battlefield style weapons.
there's no hand brake on the 2nd amendment and attempting to change that will never happen unless you bring in a dictatorship that's willing to disband the protective elements within the US government to push through the change ie supreme court and the houses.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I wonder if the 2nd Amendment would still come into effect if a guy had a nuke in his basement. Methinks their constitutional rights would be violated pretty quick.
Again that goes back to the US Government versus Miller
the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”
That's easy to prove with a nuke which is a strategic and offensive weapon, oh and also falls on their list of weapons of mass destructions and nationstate weapons.
So no it wouldn't come in to effect.
But try proving that with hand guns and assault rifles which could be reasonably argued are required for the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia or the protection of the individual.
I get the point that you're making, but its not relatable.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Again that goes back to the US Government versus Miller
the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”
That's easy to prove with a nuke which is a strategic and offensive weapon, oh and also falls on their list of weapons of mass destructions and nationstate weapons.
So no it wouldn't come in to effect.
But try proving that with hand guns and assault rifles which could be reasonably argued are required for the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia or the protection of the individual.
I get the point that you're making, but its not relatable.
Is it not relatable insofar as to the "regulated militia" and it's needs to protect citizens from the government when the government has thousands of them? If that truly is the goal of the 2nd amendment, then citizens should have access to all weapons that the government does, including tanks, jets, and nukes.
Perhaps because this was on video something will change? Video is very powerful.
Video is powerful.....but 20 dead eight year olds should have been the most powerful thing to ever happen for gun control. Instead gun laws were mostly left alone or loosened, and gun sales went through the roof. You can similarily expect gun sales to spike here as the "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to make sure they have 60 guns instead of 55 because only having 55 is just not enough.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
It is rather ironic to see several news media personalities on Twitter getting upset that people are sharing video of the shooting and imploring people to stop sharing it, and how the victims should be front and centre, etc. Funny how that attitude changes when the media becomes the news rather than simply reports on it.
Video is powerful.....but 20 dead eight year olds should have been the most powerful thing to ever happen for gun control. Instead gun laws were mostly left alone or loosened, and gun sales went through the roof. You can similarily expect gun sales to spike here as the "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to make sure they have 60 guns instead of 55 because only having 55 is just not enough.
Is it not relatable insofar as to the "regulated militia" and it's needs to protect citizens from the government when the government has thousands of them? If that truly is the goal of the 2nd amendment, then citizens should have access to all weapons that the government does, including tanks, jets, and nukes.
Fair enough, but the government for example can prohibit the distribution of that technology and the materials needed for production. Plus I doubt that most buck toothed militia morons have several billion dollars to develop their own Manhattan project.
Like I've said though in the past, the easiest way to enact gun control is for the government to set price controls on bullets. You can still buy them, you're right to own them is protected, but each bullet costs $50,000.00
Seriously though, its easier for the government to prohibit the sale of jet fighters and tanks to militia's and they don't need to bother because of costs, but and this is funny, there are lots of stories of people in the states who have purchased Russian fighters and tanks with deactivated weapons systems, and nobody is talking about the fact that there are dozens of millionaires who have these weapons, and could form their own airforce.
Frankly, the problem in the States is with the lobby system and specifically the NRA, you're never going to see the change to the constitution in terms of gun control because they will spend all of their resources on lobbying to weaken the change at the very least or spending the money to fight to the supreme court because the law in on their side.
The route to gun control is honestly with tougher federal laws in terms of gun crimes.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Is it not relatable insofar as to the "regulated militia" and it's needs to protect citizens from the government when the government has thousands of them? If that truly is the goal of the 2nd amendment, then citizens should have access to all weapons that the government does, including tanks, jets, and nukes.
And citizens can buy tanks and fighter planes, they're just decommissioned or have their weapons systems removed or deactived.
Hell I was searching on line and their was a kilo diesel submarine for sale.
Frankly if someone wanted to buy these things they could probably challenge under the 2nd and the U.S. government would have to prove the right to own them is not required for personal protection against the government whereas the citizen would argue exactly as above.
As far as a nuke, if someone can convince the military manufacturer that he has the money for one, and he has the right to have one it would be an interesting conversation to say the least, whereas the U.S. government would point to the fact that the US militaries defined use of these weapons is against foreign governments and that they wouldn't be able to use the weapon within their own border due to the confirmation rule of its usage.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
It's pretty obvious that the "well regulated" has been missing for some time now.
Again, that's not defined in the constitution, that has to be defined by the justice system itself, and it has to be able to survive a challenge using the second amendment.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Fair enough, but the government for example can prohibit the distribution of that technology and the materials needed for production. Plus I doubt that most buck toothed militia morons have several billion dollars to develop their own Manhattan project.
Like I've said though in the past, the easiest way to enact gun control is for the government to set price controls on bullets. You can still buy them, you're right to own them is protected, but each bullet costs $50,000.00
Seriously though, its easier for the government to prohibit the sale of jet fighters and tanks to militia's and they don't need to bother because of costs, but and this is funny, there are lots of stories of people in the states who have purchased Russian fighters and tanks with deactivated weapons systems, and nobody is talking about the fact that there are dozens of millionaires who have these weapons, and could form their own airforce.
Frankly, the problem in the States is with the lobby system and specifically the NRA, you're never going to see the change to the constitution in terms of gun control because they will spend all of their resources on lobbying to weaken the change at the very least or spending the money to fight to the supreme court because the law in on their side.
The route to gun control is honestly with tougher federal laws in terms of gun crimes.
Yeah I agree with you that the best way to do this would be to put focus on the manufacturers, limiting their ability to produce such weapons and/or making them prohibitively expensive. But I'm sure there's some constitutional issue with regards to governments doing that as well. Then they would need to be much more vigilant on guns coming across the borders (IE literally no guns can cross the border either way). Will that eliminate them? No but it would vastly reduce them.
I'm sure there are at least a few NRA members who could afford their own fighter jet, or who could pay someone enough to have a nuke built.
After writing my first post I thought about it and I would love to see a case of a wealthy person doing something like that specifically to start the conversation about the ludicrousness of these interpretations of the amendment and the need for it at all. Kind of like the "Monkey Trial" where teacher John Scopes purposely incriminated himself under the Tennessee law against teaching evolution so it could be completely debunked on a public stage.
It seems he faxed a 23 page document to the news station. I am curious what his motivation was. His twitter ramblings seemed a bit insane from what I can see from news sites.
There is too much money in the gun and weapon industry, and of course money can buy political clout.
I doubt this video changes anything. This is the same state that the Virginia Tech massacre happened in just 8 years ago, and it doesn't seem like much has changed since then.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
