So. They want to sign the new UN small arms treaty

[Fish]

No shit! People have become total pussies who, rather than making their own decisions, want the government to make them all for them. It is like people want to live in some sort of utopia where everything is perfect because everything is regulated. The fundamental issue with it is that more regulation does not exactly equate to a better or more safe livelihood but it sure does infringe upon liberty. Did I mention how many Americans have become total pussies? Ask for more gun control, or control of an kind for that matter, and of course the government is going to take that slack up that we give them. That ostrich sticking its head in the sand approach sickens me.

That's right wing fear mongering right there.

 

[rocket5979]

That's right wing fear mongering right there.

It is reality, if people let it become so.

 

[Fish]

Nothing at all, but guess what? You have no Constitutionally granted rights to own any of those products either. Fell into what? You clearly can't formulate an argument.

Sure I can. However you are left of center and obviously don't give a shit about the subject at hand. The road down the slippery slope begins with one step. So keep walking while some of us wish not to walk that road.

 

[BrianG]

Sure I can. However you are left of center and obviously don't give a shit about the subject at hand. The road down the slippery slope begins with one step. So keep walking while some of us wish not to walk that road.

You're wrong again. My point since the beginning was to set people straight on the unfounded fear of this treaty. It will not affect domestic gun laws in the slightest because IT CAN'T. This is the 3rd time in the last week that I've seen this "ermagehrd treaty!" crap being blindly fed to others in all of its inaccuracies, and those that can't do their own research or don't have an understanding of how treaties and the Constitution work should be thanking me. It's okay tho, I figured from the start that all the arguments to my posts would be from people that don't understand the Constitution or know how to read or interpret law, so it's all good.

 

[Fish]

People that dont understand the constitution? Lol. Please tell me more!

 

[zenriddles]

It's okay tho, I figured from the start that all the arguments to my posts would be from people that don't understand the Constitution or know how to read or interpret law,

I think you hit something big here - the difference between Liberal and Conservative.

A liberal believes that the Constitution is to be "Interpreted" over time as things change.

A conservative believes that the Constitution was designed to stand the test of time by being taken unwaveringly literally, down to every last comma and hyphen.

I also would like you to perform a simple test please. Go to someplace else and buy a handgun. Bring it back home to Chicago. Call the Police and tell them you have a handgun within their borders which you purchased legally.

See how fast you get "Infringed".

 

[Blood on Blood]

Banning sales of hand guns within a municipality is not unconstitutional. Chicago is also strongly democratic and the ordinance was unanimously overturned. It had nothing to do with the NRA or republicans.

Brian - the NRA had nothing to due with, zero involvement in overturning the Chicago ordinance?

 

[Burtonrider10022]

Brian - the NRA had nothing to due with, zero involvement in overturning the Chicago ordinance?

You're feeding the troll, stop it.

I don't know enough about the treaty to comment, but I will say that BrianG's "interpretation" of Chicago's handgun ban is backwards as fuck.

 

[zenriddles]

http://nagr.org/UN_Draft_Treaty.pdf

 

[Burtonrider10022]

http://nagr.org/UN_Draft_Treaty.pdf

Thanks, I am uninformed currently not from ignorance, just been busy. So, I appreciate you saving me the time lol.


(Not being sarcastic either, I'll check this out soon)

 

[Shells_04]

Wow interesting article and parallels

 

[Primalzer]

I think you hit something big here - the difference between Liberal and Conservative.

A liberal believes that the Constitution is to be "Interpreted" over time as things change.

A conservative believes that the Constitution was designed to stand the test of time by being taken unwaveringly literally, down to every last comma and hyphen.

I also would like you to perform a simple test please. Go to someplace else and buy a handgun. Bring it back home to Chicago. Call the Police and tell them you have a handgun within their borders which you purchased legally.

See how fast you get "Infringed".

Well then apparently current conservatives have strayed from the founding fathers initial design of the constitution....

I'll just leave this here, read at your leisure...

The framers of the Constitution wisely spoke in general language
and left to succeeding generations the task of applying
that language to the unceasingly changing environment in
which they would live. Those who framed, adopted, and ratified
the Civil War amendments7 to the Constitution likewise
used what have been aptly described as “majestic generalities”8
in composing the fourteenth amendment. Merely because a
particular activity may not have existed when the Constitution
was adopted, or because the framers could not have conceived
of a particular method of transacting affairs, cannot mean that
general language in the Constitution may not be applied to
such a course of conduct. Where the framers of the Constitution
have used general language, they have given latitude to
those who would later interpret the instrument to make that
language applicable to cases that the framers might not have
foreseen.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[sickmint79]

Well then apparently current conservatives have strayed from the founding fathers initial design of the constitution....

I'll just leave this here, read at your leisure...



http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

it's not that it be taken literally, it's that it be taken with original intent.

the reality is we've strayed so far from that it's ridiculous, where you can interpret anything you want from it now.

example: we respected the constitution enough to pass the 19th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

today we have no such amendment, yet we prohibit the wildly less harmful marijuana, which even a simple majority of americans i believe would now legalize.

and today it is permissible to tax people for not buying the product of a private corporation.

regardless of the founders being able to imagine our world today, i have doubts they would support a government as intrusive as the one mentioned above, which is in many ways more intrusive than the one they rebelled against.

 

[Primalzer]

it's not that it be taken literally, it's that it be taken with original intent.

the reality is we've strayed so far from that it's ridiculous, where you can interpret anything you want from it now.

example: we respected the constitution enough to pass the 19th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

today we have no such amendment, yet we prohibit the wildly less harmful marijuana, which even a simple majority of americans i believe would now legalize.

and today it is permissible to tax people for not buying the product of a private corporation.

regardless of the founders being able to imagine our world today, i have doubts they would support a government as intrusive as the one mentioned above, which is in many ways more intrusive than the one they rebelled against.

Oh I agree completely, my post was more for the conservatives take literal meanings (of which it was never intended to be) and the liberals take their own interpretations (which it was intended to be). I think that both parties are equally to blame for taking liberties with the constitution and to say that one is more guilty than the other is just not facing facts.

 

[zenriddles]

Oh I agree completely, my post was more for the conservatives take literal meanings (of which it was never intended to be) and the liberals take their own interpretations (which it was intended to be). I think that both parties are equally to blame for taking liberties with the constitution and to say that one is more guilty than the other is just not facing facts.

Agreed. Sir.

The fact is this - if you want to change the Constitution, there are roads to do this, and you may do this. But to try to pick at the edges and cheat the system is unacceptable.

 

[Primalzer]

Agreed. Sir.

The fact is this - if you want to change the Constitution, there are roads to do this, and you may do this. But to try to pick at the edges and cheat the system is unacceptable.

Definitely. The main issue is the different parties also view the meanings of the Constitution different ways, and that's really how it was meant to be. In the article I posted, Justice Holmes states "constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflictwith the Constitution of the United States."

 

[nytebyte]

The fact is this - if you want to change the Constitution, there are roads to do this, and you may do this. But to try to pick at the edges and cheat the system is unacceptable.

Yes, and also purposefully misinterpreting it.
For example, the common belief of liberals is that the 2nd amendment is either for hunting and target shooting only, or it means that guns are only allowed to be possessed by the military.

 

[Primalzer]

Yes, and also purposefully misinterpreting it.
For example, the common belief of liberals is that the 2nd amendment is either for hunting and target shooting only, or it means that guns are only allowed to be possessed by the military.

Again you are making generalizations about liberals. I am liberal I own a gun. There are many many liberals that feel the same way about me, just as I'm sure there are many many conservatives that are all for strict gun control.

 

[GG Allin]

The basis of our gun laws today are taken almost directly form German gun laws of Hitler's era. The Gun Control Act of 1968 is written nearly word for word as theirs were written. How does that make you all feel?

 

[Bob Kazamakis]

That Johnson was a secret nazi?

 

[Blood on Blood]

Bottom line, our right to bear arms shall not be infringed (i.e., violated or invalidated).

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson

 

[BrianG]

You're feeding the troll, stop it.

I don't know enough about the treaty to comment, but I will say that BrianG's "interpretation" of Chicago's handgun ban is backwards as fuck.

I already disagreed with the handgun ban. I'm not entirely sure how that got signed into law to tell you the truth because it's ridiculously in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to sell firearms tho, so no, nothing is "backwards as fuck."

the reality is we've strayed so far from that it's ridiculous, where you can interpret anything you want from it now.

example: we respected the constitution enough to pass the 19th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

today we have no such amendment, yet we prohibit the wildly less harmful marijuana, which even a simple majority of americans i believe would now legalize.

This shows that you have 0 concept of law, layers of government, the Constitution, sovereignty of states under the Constitution, etc. You don't need an amendment to the Constitution to create a law. The Constitution is in place to create a basis of rules that may not be strayed from by the states under which it governs. The only thing your "example" shows is that the Constitution is still working because the ONLY THING to overturn the 19th amendment of prohibition was ANOTHER AMENDMENT! Creating and passing the 19th Amendment has nothing to do with "respect" for the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that all laws governing the land of the US have to be created as Amendments to the Constitution.

And where did that annotated document on the treaty come from? I'm really not understanding why people are getting so worked up about national gun controls when all that document talks about is the INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF GUNS.

 

[GG Allin]

That Johnson was a secret nazi?

He only signed it.

 

[Bob Kazamakis]

Because he's a nazi?

 

[Primalzer]

I already disagreed with the handgun ban. I'm not entirely sure how that got signed into law to tell you the truth because it's ridiculously in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to sell firearms tho, so no, nothing is "backwards as fuck.".

This, nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say that guns need to be readily available for sale everywhere.

Playing devil's advocate here, I think there needs to be some restrictions on the sale of guns to include classes and instruction about their safety and usage. I think the majority of issues that come from accidental deaths is from people who own guns but don't know how to use them or how to secure them away properly.