Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we’re about to find out.
We might. I agree with that there’s a possibility that a test case on this issue may wind up before the Supreme Court. But it won’t happen fast – it’s got to go through the lower courts first, and the Supreme Court may or may not agree to hear an appeal from the appellate verdict (if there is one) from the District Court decision, which may be an appeal from a Florida state court decision, etc.

It will probably take a while. A couple of years, for sure.
 
And I have no trouble with 21, if it is consistent. No military service until 21, no voting until 21. Adult should mean adult. Pick an age
 
That has nothing to do with the scope of the Cobstitution!
you said it had no significance. i showed you how it is significant.
You avoided my question. Your solution has no good effect on police failure to act.
you asked how to deal with a failure to act. i answered appropriately
you can’t prevent a failure by the police to act. even if there was a law, the police can still fail to act.
But they are not in charge and not the only voice. There are established processes to write laws and the revise the Constitution.
gun control money goes a long way in what laws are written. lobbyist help write many laws.
 
There is no reason all those “coming of age” thresholds need to be tied to the same age.
Oh, I agree completely. I was just making a rhetorical point, really.

That said, if tying them together is what it takes to start down the path to sanity when it comes to guns, so be it.

It’s not going to happen, of course, because to take away the right to vote from 18-year-olds would require a Constitutional amendment.

Enacting reasonable gun regulation would not.
 
There is no reason all those “coming of age” thresholds need to be tied to the same age.
seems to be if you are not responsible enough to own a gun because of your age, you shouldn’t be expected to use one for the government. if one isn’t responsible, why would we want them to vote?
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There is no reason all those “coming of age” thresholds need to be tied to the same age.
seems to be if you are not responsible enough to own a gun because of your age, you shouldn’t be expected to use one for the government. if one isn’t responsible, why would we want them to vote?
Using a gun under the supervision and instruction of the military is different than using a gun on your own with possibly no instruction. Also responsibility in handling a gun is different than responsibility in being educated in current events. I’ll bet many high school kids are more knowledgeable about those things than many 70 or 80 year olds who may not follow current events. I don’t think we should refuse the vote to people in nursing homes either. Also also, one person’s irresponsible use of a gun can kill 17 kids. But one person’s vote probably will not elect a bad leader. It is OK if only a majority of kids are smart voters. But it is not OK if only a majority of kids are not mass murders.
 
Using a gun under the supervision and instruction of the military is different than using a gun on your own with possibly no instruction.
how is it different? what kind of supervision do you have in the military?
Also responsibility in handling a gun is different than responsibility in being educated in current events.
no, it isn’t. being a responsible person doesn’t usually change based on the activity.

education doesn’t make you responsible, it may only make you knowledgeable.

morals make you responsible and we don’t teach morals anymore in public school. morals instill right and wrong.
I’ll bet many high school kids are more knowledgeable about those things than many 70 or 80 year olds who may not follow current events.
the kids don’t have the real world experiences and don’t know right from wrong. knowing what is right and what is wrong makes a senior better able to vote.

have you listened to the kids on current events? they don’t really know what is going on.
I don’t think we should refuse the vote to people in nursing homes either.
i agree age isn’t a reason to discriminate, so why discriminate against the young based on the actions of a few?
Also also, one person’s irresponsible use of a gun can kill 17 kids. But one person’s vote probably will not elect a bad leader. It is OK if only a majority of kids are smart voters. But it is not OK if only a majority of kids are not mass murders.
auto accidents are the leading cause of death for teens ages 15 to 20.
In 2015, 2,333 teens in the United States ages 16–19 were killed and 235,845 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes. That means that six teens ages 16–19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries.
if we are really concerned about kids maybe we need to raise the age to 21 for everything.
 
the kids don’t have the real world experiences and don’t know right from wrong.
If they don’t know right from wrong, we’ve really gotta raise the minimum age for buying guns. 😉
 
The problem is by raising the minimum age for everything to 21 is to “infantilize” everyone.

What you do is to gradually add responsibility and knowledge and experience while taking advantage of the person’s assets … primarily strength and enthusiasm and willingness to learn.

Traditionally, people may be too young for some activities but ok for others … alcohol consumption and marriage are two that require more maturity, whereas operating a gun can begin at a younger age.

If an individual displays consistent poor judgement then that specific individual can be restricted by the community.

In the case of the Parkland, Florida shooter, he had years of aberrant behavior but under bizarre law enforcement [the “PROMISE” program], he was given years of free passes.

Clearly, when law enforcement is found to be at fault, then law enforcement needs to be severely sanctioned.

But the community as a whole should not be punished for the failures of law enforcement and one individual who previously had been identified repeatedly as aberrant.

http://www.wagc.com/leniency-behind-growth-of-youth-crime-for-most-offences-by-teens/

 
Last edited:
excerpt:

"Broward County adopted a lenient disciplinary policy similar to those adopted by many other districts under pressure from the Obama administration to reduce racial ‘disparities’ in suspensions and expulsions,” said Peter Kirsanow, a black conservative on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in Washington. "In many of these districts, the drive to ‘get our numbers right’ has produced disastrous results, with startling increases in both the number and severity of disciplinary offenses, including assaults and beatings of teachers and students.”

For example, in St. Paul, Minn., a high school science teacher was “beaten and choked out” by a 16-year-old student, who allegedly came up behind him, called him a “f–king white cracker,” and put him in a stranglehold, before bashing his head into a concrete wall and pavement. The student, Fon’Tae O’Bannon, got 90 days of electronic home monitoring and anger management counseling for the December 2015 attack.

The instructor, John Ekblad, who has experienced short-term memory loss and hearing problems, blames the Obama-era discipline policies for emboldening criminal behavior, adding that school violence “is still rising out of control.”

In Buffalo, New York, a teacher who got kicked in the head by a student said: “We have fights here almost every day. The kids walk around and say, ‘We can’t get suspended – we don’t care what you say.’ ”

Kirsanow said that in just the first year after the Obama administration issued its anti-discipline edict, public schools failed to expel more than 30,000 students who physically attacked teachers or staff across the country. Previously, “if you hit a teach, you’re gone,” he said, but that is no longer the case.

No district has taken this new approach further than Broward County. The core of the approach is a program called PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Support & Education), which substitutes counseling for criminal detention for students who break the law.

The expressed goal of PROMISE is to bring about “reductions in external suspension, expulsions and arrests.” Delinquents who are diverted to the program are essentially absolved of responsibility for their actions. “This approach focuses on the situation as being the problem rather than the individual being the problem,” the website states.

Additional literature reveals that students referred to PROMISE for in-school misdemeanors – including assault, theft, vandalism, underage drinking and drug use – receive a controversial alternative punishment known as restorative justice.

“Rather than focusing on punishment, restorative justice seeks to repair the harm done,” the district explains.

Listed among the district’s “restorative justice partners” is the Broward Sheriff’s Office. Deputies and local police officers, as well as court officials, routinely attend meetings with PROMISE leaders, where they receive training in such emotional support programs.


273 comments
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Using a gun under the supervision and instruction of the military is different than using a gun on your own with possibly no instruction.
how is it different? what kind of supervision do you have in the military?
You get lots of instruction. You are taught safety rules. You are taught rules of engagement. You are taught when it is proper to use your weapon. There are consequences of not following those rules. That creates an incentive to follow them.

Using a gun on your own comes with no mandatory instruction of any kind. Are you proposing that we institute a policy whereby one must pass a course on proper gun usage before buying a gun? Such policies are the rule in many countries.
 
Oversight, discipline, training, monitoring, evaluation.
not from what i remember. they put you on a range and if you could hit the target you passed. if you hit it enough times you were a marksman. if you hit it everytime you were an expert. the only thing we were told was where to point the front end of it.
Using a gun on your own comes with no mandatory instruction of any kind.
it isn’t rocket science,

every kid used to know how to handle a gun where i grew up. the parents taught the kids. hunting was a way to put extra food on the table.
You get lots of instruction. You are taught safety rules. You are taught rules of engagement. You are taught when it is proper to use your weapon. There are consequences of not following those rules. That creates an incentive to follow them.
when were you in the service?
 
we are playing with fire advocating banning weapons. weapons change, but humans have not. here are a few comments by some of our founders. there are many, many more. “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
  • Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
  • St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
  • Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top