Media Bias

[Cunt]

To your question. My take is that the basis of the limits on ownership and property defense rights is due process of law, under laws democratically created in accordance with our Constitution.

That second amendment is pretty strongly worded. Tough to limit anything with it.

With so many entities, state, private and foreign, having heaps of firearms, it starts to look like limits need to be considered in the light that they will only limit the law-abiding citizen. Diplomatic immunity, corporate greed and lobbying and simple criminals can all be as armed as they wish.

And the constitution should have said something clearer. If you want everybody to be dangerous, some of them are going to be killed. Some even wrongfully.

And the constitution CLEARLY wanted dangerous men to be in the country.

[Joe]

To your question. My take is that the basis of the limits on ownership and property defense rights is due process of law, under laws democratically created in accordance with our Constitution.

That second amendment is pretty strongly worded. Tough to limit anything with it.

With so many entities, state, private and foreign, having heaps of firearms, it starts to look like limits need to be considered in the light that they will only limit the law-abiding citizen. Diplomatic immunity, corporate greed and lobbying and simple criminals can all be as armed as they wish.

And the constitution should have said something clearer. If you want everybody to be dangerous, some of them are going to be killed. Some even wrongfully.

And the constitution CLEARLY wanted dangerous men to be in the country.

The 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms doesn't stand in isolation from the other rights of the people and powers of the government enumerated and or implied in the Constitution. As a consequence, the right is limited to a degree, although extreme proponents try and pretend that isn't the case.

As is typical in a democracy, we fight out what the limits are in the legislatures and the courts. It's possible we could clarify things through a Constitutional amendment, but politically not likely.

I don't know what you mean by the Constitution wanting dangerous men to be in the country. How is that clear?

[Cunt]

The constitution seems to grant rights, like the right to bear arms, but it is LOADED with responsibilities, which are taken up by men willing to be dangerous.

For example, lots of criticisms of men with guns shooting people, but VERY few people willing to take on the job of police, because they know they might have to kill someone.

I wish the constitution had focused a bit more on the responsibilities, rather than the rights.

Picture everyone sitting in a room, in a circle, in easy range of each other. Give each of them a gun, and then tell them they can say anything.

That's the states, and if you imagine it large enough, some of those in the circle will be terrible, and the job of addressing it will fall to others in the circle.

It's a very dangerous circle of people.

Lots of people wish they could opt out of the circle, and pretend they aren't willing to shoot people, but they ALL fund a proxy to take that seat for them (police, or military, or private security). So they don't oppose having someone shoot, they just want their favourite group to be the only one with power. Usually 'democratically elected officials', but whether that is what happens can be one of the things that is talked about.

Like asking for a vote on how many genders should be allowed to play in a womens' sports league, democracy sometimes only suits folks when they expect to win that vote.

[Joe]

The constitution seems to grant rights, like the right to bear arms, but it is LOADED with responsibilities, which are taken up by men willing to be dangerous.

For example, lots of criticisms of men with guns shooting people, but VERY few people willing to take on the job of police, because they know they might have to kill someone.

I wish the constitution had focused a bit more on the responsibilities, rather than the rights.

Picture everyone sitting in a room, in a circle, in easy range of each other. Give each of them a gun, and then tell them they can say anything.

That's the states, and if you imagine it large enough, some of those in the circle will be terrible, and the job of addressing it will fall to others in the circle.

It's a very dangerous circle of people.

Lots of people wish they could opt out of the circle, and pretend they aren't willing to shoot people, but they ALL fund a proxy to take that seat for them (police, or military, or private security). So they don't oppose having someone shoot, they just want their favourite group to be the only one with power. Usually 'democratically elected officials', but whether that is what happens can be one of the things that is talked about.

Like asking for a vote on how many genders should be allowed to play in a womens' sports league, democracy sometimes only suits folks when they expect to win that vote.

One of the best descriptions of the US Constitution I've heard is that it was a treaty among the States. The US already existed as a confederation, a bit like an 18th century EU, so a lot of governing institutions, like police, were already in place. As a consequence, it doesn't address a lot of stuff you'd see in a unitary type of government.

The Bill of Rights wasn't in the original plan either, but had to be added to get it to pass ratification. If you look at it closely, it doesn't define rights, so much as protect what's already there.

It was okay for a first cut, but it needs some work.

[Cunt]

I think they tried their best, staring straight at some of the ugliest, most difficult aspects of humanity.

A lot of people who try to edit their work, don't show the same unblinking acceptance of the true beauty and gentleness of human nature.

[Joe]

That's quite a romantic view. Have you studied them?

[Cunt]

Their work more.

I don't study much of anything. Yes it's a romantic view, but an honest one.

People can be horrible. That sounds a bit weak though.

People can be as inspired, prolific and productive as Erdos, and suddenly turn horrible brilliance against some random person, country or planet.

Thank fuck he didn't, but the point is the guys setting up that third-world shithole country between here and Mexico, really seemed to understand that. The devices in place to counterbalance things seem quite thoughtful.

Isn't there a dusty old amendment (5th?) that allows the states to just go 'fuck you we're changing the constitution'? I mean they need a certain number, but it shows they foresaw blind spots in their foresight.

[Joe]

The Article V convention isn't exactly a dusty old amendment. It's been actively pursued for various reasons for quite some time. Any amendments arising from such a convention still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States, but yes they made provision for a gridlocked Legislative branch. After all, they had the example of the late Republic Roman Senate.

They did a good job on a lot of things, but not all.

The original Electoral process died a humiliating death in 1800. It took an amendment and the intervention of the parties to create the system in place today, and pieces the Framers made are still causing problems.

They didn't foresee the advent of national political parties, universal male suffrage, and the kind of people who would be elected to office.

They were smart, but only human. I guess it's natural to revere them, but sometimes we get carried away,

[Cunt]

I sure do. That 'natural rights' thing, isn't them. (thought it was, from not studying)

It's important though, not as rights to issue or protect, but to recognize. To respect.

For example, I respect every animals natural right to defend itself with deadly force, with all it's might.

It's terrible, on it's face, to think of humans as THAT terrible, but it's also pretty fucking beautiful. Dangerous, angry and antisocial men everywhere, and almost none of them shoot me every day. Bless their black flabby hearts.

[pErvinalia]

In America you'd have a greater chance of being shot by them. Of course, you could get a gun and preemptively shoot them.

[Cunt]

Alternately, you could be Canadian, have plenty of guns, and give each other hugs and friendly smiles.

[Hermit]

Alternately, you could be Canadian, have plenty of guns, and give each other hugs and friendly smiles.

The number of guns in Canada is a lot closer to the number in Australia than the USA.

Firearms per 100 persons
Australia - 14.5
Canada - 34.7
USA - 120.5

I'm sure we could give each other hugs and friendly smiles in the US as well as Canada, but why travel that far for them? It's not as though we can't do that right here at home.

Edit: Fixed result of galloping dementia. Thanks, pErv.

[pErvinalia]

USA and Australia mixed up?

[JimC]

It all comes down to the purpose of the individual buying the gun, and the purpose of people buying semi-automatic rifles with 30 shot magazines is not a purpose that society should have to accept.

[Brian Peacock]

Why do you hate freedumb?!?