The Second Amendment likely to be repealed

[unklbob]

I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 11:00:35 AM UTC-5, unklbob wrote:
> I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.

Are we talking the first or second amendment here?

[xyzzy]

No it won't be. Forget the arguments for or against on the merits. Which 38 states would ratify the amendment needed to repeal or change it?

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 11:12:38 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> No it won't be. Forget the arguments for or against on the merits. Which 38 states would ratify the amendment needed to repeal or change it?

oh man - I was saving that for later in thread....buzzkiller

[unklbob]

Repealing the Second Amendment does not equal removing guns, it just removes a barrier to meaningful regulation. I stated over five years ago on this chat room that gay marriage will become the law of the land, and the reasoning I gave was not political, it was legal.

We've been at the tipping point for a while on this, it will get much worse before it gets better.

As for what states will ratify it, I foresee a major sea change, and when the argument is presented properly even the most recalcitrant will come around.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Curious what you think the "proper argument" could be

Repealing an amendment, frankly, seems extremely doubtful.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:00:26 -0700 (PDT), unklbob
<m1cgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.

That would be great because without guns no crazy person would be able
to kill people.

Hugh

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

As much as progs would like to repeal both, I don't see it happening.
Thank god.

Gun deaths, by the way, are down by over 50% per-capita over the
past 20 years, as the number of guns has doubled.

--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

[unklbob]

Sorry for the shitty attribution, I'm on an iPad.

For,starters, the States would have to adopt their own gun rights and regulations that do not conflict with over arching Federal Law. Those rights and regs would necessarily place restrictions on gun ownership while still making sure people felt they could protect themselves.


BTW, this is not a troll, I truly see this happening. For the record, and I've stated this here before, I sat in a European foreign policy course in the mid '80s and stated unequivocally that Germany would be reunified within the decade, and later stated that we wouldn't refer to the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union, but Russia. Both times I was pooh poohed and looked upon with the same sort of eyes you might reserve for a slow child, but I was right.

I stated here, and you are welcome to look it up, back around the time of the DOMA that SCOTUS would ultimately make gay marriage a universal right and I was right about that, too.

Right now, even after the recent shooting, this is way too much a political suicidal move to be discussed by elected officials, but after ten more shootings it will be discussed. And there *will* be ten more shootings, and ten more after that.

The most conservative people I know are getting sick and tired of the violence, the deaths, and it's gonna happen.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:18:08 PM UTC-5, unklbob wrote:
> Sorry for the shitty attribution, I'm on an iPad.

Been there, done that - left it in the rain - no more attribution issues...

> For,starters, the States would have to adopt their own gun rights and regulations that do not conflict with over arching Federal Law. Those rights and regs would necessarily place restrictions on gun ownership while still making sure people felt they could protect themselves.
>

How is that different than now? States already have a great deal of latitude in how they frame their gun laws - and there's certainly no crossborder reciprocity of gun laws as evidenced many times in places like NY and NJ.

> BTW, this is not a troll, I truly see this happening. For the record, and I've stated this here before, I sat in a European foreign policy course in the mid '80s and stated unequivocally that Germany would be reunified within the decade, and later stated that we wouldn't refer to the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union, but Russia. Both times I was pooh poohed and looked upon with the same sort of eyes you might reserve for a slow child, but I was right.
>
> I stated here, and you are welcome to look it up, back around the time of the DOMA that SCOTUS would ultimately make gay marriage a universal right and I was right about that, too.
>
> Right now, even after the recent shooting, this is way too much a political suicidal move to be discussed by elected officials, but after ten more shootings it will be discussed. And there *will* be ten more shootings, and ten more after that.
>
> The most conservative people I know are getting sick and tired of the violence, the deaths, and it's gonna happen.

That's been the standard argument all along - not seeing how that's any "different" or would lead towards repealing an amendment - something which will take a monumental effort.

Stats are easy to manipulate - and I'm sure we can all come up with loads of stats to support whatever we want - however, how much of our response is due to the immediacy of news - having it right in our face via Twitter, the web, our phones, tv, etc.

IOW, are the frequencies of these events going up - or are we just facing immediacy bias?

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Serious question, ch... why does it matter? For instance, in the context of school shootings, if I find out that the frequency has always been the same and we were just sort of blissfully unaware previously... so what? Don't think that's relevant because I don't think the argument hinges on the assumption that these have increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:45:24 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Serious question, ch... why does it matter? For instance, in the context of school shootings, if I find out that the frequency has always been the same and we were just sort of blissfully unaware previously... so what? Don't think that's relevant because I don't think the argument hinges on the assumption that these have increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

Fair nuf - to me frequency of occurence matters for whatever - for various reasons.

1) Are we worried about something we ought to be worried about or is it really background noise?
2) People are really good at over estimating risks - we think X is far more dangerous than it really is
3) Headline noise can seriously influence our decision process - whereas if the facts are presented in context, they might not seem so egregious when compared to other similar events.
4) Historical context - are there more or less than years back? If same or less, isn't the issue already "taking care of itself" somewhat?

Example - mass gun shooting. Hey they flat out suck. horrible terrible occurences. Just flat out awful.

Okay - now - how many people get killed in these circumstances each year - and how does this compare to other forms of accidental/nonhealth related deaths? How have trends changed over the past X years? How have they changed relative to availability of guns? Are our knee-jerk reactions something which will actually effect change - or simply do nothing? What is our actual goal rather than our knee-jerk goal?

Repealing an amendment is a BIG DEAL - as in HUGE - so yeah - all the above and more do matter.

At least to me.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 9:00:35 AM UTC-7, unklbob wrote:
> I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.

I don't think there's a choice -- and if that's what sets off the Civil War II, so be it.

Facts are facts: Until you can ensure that guns don't get in the hands of people who should not have them, you will have carnage throughout this nation.

Mike

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 9:12:38 AM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:
> No it won't be. Forget the arguments for or against on the merits. Which 38 states would ratify the amendment needed to repeal or change it?

How about by force, like the speed limit?

Constitutional Convention?

Mike

[Wolfie]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:00:26 -0700 (PDT), unklbob
<m1cgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, it won't.

And even this Supreme Court - with a majority of
conservatives - doesn't believe you can't have
meaningful gun regulation that's perfectly legal
with the Second Amendment.

You have a right to firearms - *IN YOUR HOME* - for
self-defense. There's no "right" to open-carry, there's
no "right" to concealed carry, and there's no "right" to
not have the firearms registered and/or ownership
without reasonable requirements.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

I'm not disagreeing with the points you made above. To speak to the larger question, I'd oppose repealing the 2nd (like to hunt) but that would imply that I think that's even close to being on the table, which I don't.

Sort of riffing on one of the points you made, they have a comparison of terrorism related deaths in the us vs non-terrorism gun deaths on cnn right now.

Sort of illustrates one of the points you made above, given how extremely unlikely it is that any of us will be hurt or killed by a terrorist, but how many freedoms have we been willing to forsake in the name of being safe from terrorists? But even suggest that we need stronger gun laws of any sort and people go nuts, even tho you're like 1000x more likely to be killed by an accidental firearm discharge vs terrorism in any form.

I guess I'm in a weird spot on this issue because I like to own guns and sort of lean against the general principle of making associative behaviors (whether it's owning a gun or shooting heroin) illegal because there is some correlation between them and actual criminal behavior, but I also think, for instance, the nra leadership is effing nuts... prolly similar to how Ken feels about public unions, or something. You maybe feel ok about the principles, but most of the people that share your beliefs are nuts and take things way too far.

Hmmm, that all seems really random and unfocused. It must be Friday!

[JGibson]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:00:35 PM UTC-4, unklbob wrote:
> I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.

No. I can't see any of the original 10 ever being repealed. Even if people argue they aren't followed (and of course, we already argue that over the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th), I don't think straight out repeal would happen.

[unklbob]

All these arguments are on the surface--they don't get at the organic basis of the problem, which is the fundamental right itself. Even Karl Rove admitted as much.

Depending on where you stand politically, you pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights to worship, and they take on an almost religious aura. As such, arguments pro or con tend to be from the gut, not the brain.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:42:04 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm not disagreeing with the points you made above. To speak to the larger question, I'd oppose repealing the 2nd (like to hunt) but that would imply that I think that's even close to being on the table, which I don't.
>
> Sort of riffing on one of the points you made, they have a comparison of terrorism related deaths in the us vs non-terrorism gun deaths on cnn right now.
>
> Sort of illustrates one of the points you made above, given how extremely unlikely it is that any of us will be hurt or killed by a terrorist, but how many freedoms have we been willing to forsake in the name of being safe from terrorists? But even suggest that we need stronger gun laws of any sort and people go nuts, even tho you're like 1000x more likely to be killed by an accidental firearm discharge vs terrorism in any form.

Absolutely - why do you think I'll be voting for Feingold this cycle - b/c he stood up against the Patriot Act nonsense

On a metabasis - it's easier to give up collective "freedoms" than "individual" ones - just look at the psychosis surrounding free range kids and rise of zero tolerance idiocy in schools

> I guess I'm in a weird spot on this issue because I like to own guns and sort of lean against the general principle of making associative behaviors (whether it's owning a gun or shooting heroin) illegal because there is some correlation between them and actual criminal behavior, but I also think, for instance, the nra leadership is effing nuts... prolly similar to how Ken feels about public unions, or something. You maybe feel ok about the principles, but most of the people that share your beliefs are nuts and take things way too far.
>
> Hmmm, that all seems really random and unfocused. It must be Friday!

Woot!

I'm similar - I'd actually be okay with registration and far stronger training requirements, mandatory insurance, etc. Sadly, this will only affect the law abiding types who so verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry rarely are involved with anything like this. And also, I'd like to point out that more will be killed by guns this weekend in Chicago than y'day in Oregon - and there will NO word about that.

From the libertarialoon corner I sit, I think the NRA is absolute b/c A) it's easier than coming up with reasonable compromises B) it's handy and great for fund raising and C) b/c there is a genuine fear of confiscation.

All this being said, repealing the second amendment - ain't gonna happen for a long time. Lots of meaningful gun laws have and can happen - changing the amendment tho....

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:51:37 PM UTC-5, unklbob wrote:
> All these arguments are on the surface--they don't get at the organic basis of the problem, which is the fundamental right itself. Even Karl Rove admitted as much.
>
> Depending on where you stand politically, you pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights to worship, and they take on an almost religious aura. As such, arguments pro or con tend to be from the gut, not the brain.

Sure - and that's why repealing them is designed to be extremely challenging - b/c one man's argument from faith is another's argument against logic.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:32:30 -0700 (PDT), "The Cheesehusker, Trade
Warrior" <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Stats are easy to manipulate - and I'm sure we can all come up with loads o=
>f stats to support whatever we want - however, how much of our response is =
>due to the immediacy of news - having it right in our face via Twitter, the=

> web, our phones, tv, etc.

Stats is one of the problems. Too many dumb shits think the gun is the
problem. It 's the guy using the tool that's the problem. We let the
crazies run loose because progressives think what anyone wants to do
is right for them. And mommy's boy would never do anything like that.
Then they whine when others are affected. If liberal idiots (excuse
the redundancy) would learn to take care of problems instead of
ignoring them until too late we would have fewer problems.

Cokesackers and corksoakers can spin that any way they wish. What they
can't do is change the facts.

>IOW, are the frequencies of these events going up - or are we just facing i=
>mmediacy bias?

When the media gives them 15 minutes of fame there will be copycats.
Put the names in a hat and we'll draw one to determine which president
started the division in this country. It has to be a white guy because
half black is as close as we have come to black. The fact remains that
the worst times ever are happening on the watch of the incumbent.

To some extent (maybe all) conservatives and Christians.are the
problem. We have had our own way for a couple of centuries. Less
responsible and less moral people got fed up as any people treated in
a second-rate manner do. But the "rulers" don't give ground easily.
It's predictable that the "downtrodden" will take things too far - the
pendulum always swings the full arc before return - unless it dies.

There is no answer now because opposing sides are fed up. And some of
the fed up will use any tool available to express their displeasure.

Whether 38 states will ratify is not really the point. How many
marshalls will die trying to take all the guns from people is more
important.

Who really thinks requiring registration will cause people to register
their guns? More likely it would cause people to hide them. Who thinks
background checks will keep guns out of the hands of crazies?

I'll quit before I get started.

Hugh

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Hugh, I actually don't disagree with some of the main point you make. However, consider this:

"It 's the guy using the tool that's the problem. We let the
crazies run loose because progressives think what anyone wants to do
is right for them."

The thing is, we objectively imprison way more folk Tham other countries, by any measure you want to use.

So if that's true, and it's also true that we aren't locking up enough of our citizens, you almost have to conclude that the average American is way more prone to criminal activity than folks from all those other countries. And I just don't buy that. Maybe I've been lucky but the great majority of the people I've met are decent.

Although I'll counter my counter with the idea that both could be true if it's the case that we're locking up the wrong people, or the lengths are way longer than is the norm in other countries, both of which I suspect may be in play. I say that without subscribing to your original assertion, tho. Lol.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:59:09 PM UTC-7, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> So if that's true, and it's also true that we aren't locking up enough of our citizens, you almost have to conclude that the average American is way more prone to criminal activity than folks from all those other countries. And I just don't buy that. Maybe I've been lucky but the great majority of the people I've met are decent.

You have been. Your statement is correct: The average American is vastly more prone to criminal activity than the average person from another country.

Mike

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Party like it's 1965.

[YosemiteSam]

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Which one covers the correctness of his statement?

~YS~

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

I'd say damned lies. The U.S. is not vastly more subject to criminal
activity at all. Robbery and assault are lower than in the UK and
France, for example.

If you control for demographics, it isn't a lot different at all. For
example, if you compare the crime rate of South Dakota and Minnesota
with that of Sweden, it isn't that different.

Its just like when progs were trying to claim that Wisconsin and
their union school teachers were better than Texas. In fact, Texas
has better performance for both black and Hispanic students than
Wisconsin does.

--
"Laughter is inner jogging." -- Norman Cousins

[RoddyMcCorley]

On 10/2/2015 1:02 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2015-10-02, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 11:00:35 AM UTC-5, unklbob wrote:
>>> I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation
>>> will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.
>>
>> Are we talking the first or second amendment here?
>
> As much as progs would like to repeal both, I don't see it happening.
> Thank god.
>
> Gun deaths, by the way, are down by over 50% per-capita over the
> past 20 years, as the number of guns has doubled.
>

What makes you think "progs" would like to repeal both? Did the folks on
Fox teach you this?

--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.

Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.

[RoddyMcCorley]

On 10/2/2015 12:00 PM, unklbob wrote:
> I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.
>

If proponents of a repeal can't get enough votes in Congress for
background checks, how would the get enough votes for a repeal?

Frankly, I've never heard any serious talk of repeal. Even you typical
smart, well-informed and well-educated progressive voter believes in the
right to bear arms.

[mocki...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 11:00:35 AM UTC-5, unklbob wrote:
> I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.

What good is a gun without bullets... Think about it.

[michael anderson]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:00:35 PM UTC-4, unklbob wrote:
> I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.

bwahahahahahaha....good luck with that. I'll have my popcorn ready :)

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:59:05 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Hugh, I actually don't disagree with some of the main point you make. Howe=
>ver, consider this:
>
>"It 's the guy using the tool that's the problem. We let the=20
>crazies run loose because progressives think what anyone wants to do=20
>is right for them."
>
>The thing is, we objectively imprison way more folk Tham other countries, b=

>y any measure you want to use.
>

>So if that's true, and it's also true that we aren't locking up enough of o=
>ur citizens, you almost have to conclude that the average American is way m=
>ore prone to criminal activity than folks from all those other countries. =
>And I just don't buy that. Maybe I've been lucky but the great majority of=

> the people I've met are decent.

I don'tagree that, on the surface, your's is a reasonable conclusion.
The activity and headlines are not representative of the AVERAGE
American.

Look at the personality and characteristics of the killers. The one in
OR was a loner and moody. That's a frequent description. But we can't
assume that every lonely and moody person is a killer.

>Although I'll counter my counter with the idea that both could be true if i=
>t's the case that we're locking up the wrong people, or the lengths are way=
> longer than is the norm in other countries, both of which I suspect may be=
> in play. I say that without subscribing to your original assertion, tho. =
> Lol.

The libs have gulled us into thinking that we are equals and what's
right for a person is okay with them. While maybe heartfelt it's about
as stupid as it gets.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:23:20 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:59:09 PM UTC-7, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

>=20
>> So if that's true, and it's also true that we aren't locking up enough of=
> our citizens, you almost have to conclude that the average American is way=
> more prone to criminal activity than folks from all those other countries.=
> And I just don't buy that. Maybe I've been lucky but the great majority =

>of the people I've met are decent.
>

>You have been. Your statement is correct: The average American is vastly =
>more prone to criminal activity than the average person from another countr=
>y.
>
>Mike

I think there is some merit in what you say - at least as far as
wanting to do something to solve problems as we see them. But wanting
to, and actually committing a horrible illegal act, are different
matters entirely.

Obie and socialism should have been stopped a long time ago. If the
average American was more prone to criminal activity he would have
been. That doesn't mean that people who do their best to be
responsible should be held to second-rate status. It does mean those
who don't try to be responsible should be severely punished.

If one doesn't see the present as the most divisive and
confrontational time in out history I hope they enjoy the rest of
their teen-age years.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT), darkst...@gmail.com wrote:

>Facts are facts: Until you can ensure that guns don't get in the hands of people who should not have them, you will have carnage throughout this nation.
>
>Mike

You will never convince a liberal. It's always the gun's fault, never
the person.

Cain slew Abel without a gun.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:26:45 -0400, Wolfie <bgbd...@gte.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:00:26 -0700 (PDT), unklbob
><m1cgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful
>> gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains
>> a fundamental right.
>
>No, it won't.
>
>And even this Supreme Court - with a majority of
>conservatives - doesn't believe you can't have
>meaningful gun regulation that's perfectly legal
>with the Second Amendment.
>
>You have a right to firearms - *IN YOUR HOME* - for
>self-defense. There's no "right" to open-carry, there's
>no "right" to concealed carry,

Okay....

>and there's no "right" to
>not have the firearms registered and/or ownership
>without reasonable requirements.

You owe Adolph Hitler $1 for the last statement. You can't confiscate
guns unless you know they exist and where they are.

In today's environment I believe everyone, including me, should be
required to pass a background check to purchase a gun in the future,
and to register the gun. I would agree that gun owners, based on
anonymity of ownership, COULD be required to register current guns
owned. In todays environment a killer would get 10 years and failure
to register would get 20.

If you excuse driving 4-7 mph above the speed limit people like me
will drive at least 4-7 mph over. If you let protestors run criminally
amok without REALLY getting their attention they will surface. If mass
murderers are given publicity and their unnamed bodies are not left
for dogs an buzzards copycats will arise. Who says I have not changed
since my youth!

To reduce, not eliminate, problems the penalty has to be too harsh.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:51:33 -0700 (PDT), unklbob
<m1cgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>All these arguments are on the surface--they don't get at the organic basis of the problem, which is the fundamental right itself. Even Karl Rove admitted as much.

The fundamental right is not the problem. It's the ABUSE of the
fundamental right. Liberal morons will never comprehend that.

So, because a few hundred, of hundreds of millions of people, abuse a
right, we should abolish the right? That's the giveup position of
incompetents (pronounced lib-u-rell).

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 00:03:04 -0400, RoddyMcCorley
<Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 10/2/2015 12:00 PM, unklbob wrote:
>> I think within 20 years it will happen--no meaningful gun regulation will ever occur as long as it remains a fundamental right.
>>
>If proponents of a repeal can't get enough votes in Congress for
>background checks, how would the get enough votes for a repeal?
>
>Frankly, I've never heard any serious talk of repeal. Even you typical
>smart, well-informed and well-educated progressive voter believes in the
>right to bear arms.

A well-informed, well-educated progressive is as rare as a purple
unicorn and as useless as mammary glands on a boar hog. I don't deny
some give the pseudo-appearance of such.

Useless as testicles on a priest is outdated because queer pedophile
priests need them.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Not much - that's why people are stocking up now.

Reloading isn't practiced solely by the UK basketball team.

Hugh

[Ken Olson]

Real fear of confiscation - see the President's referrals to Australian
gun laws and how he wishes we had something similar. Also, "reasonable
compromises" = give them an inch and they'll take a mile.