Sorry Surt, not everything is 'black and white' so to speak, so that really depends on a scenario per scenario basis. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, as Presidents have vast amounts of power in the executive branch, federal.
See: Article II of the Constitution
Here's a cheat sheet: Powers of the president of the United States
Originally posted by Robtard
Um, banning all weapons would be a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". But it doesn't say that a person has the right to any and all weapons; why there are limits as to what a person can and can't own. eg You can't own a surface-to-air missile and launcher.
This is a statement, very strongly worded, that is testable. We can measure your claim about the framer's intentions against their actual intentions because of how thoroughly documented the Bill of Rights and US Constitution were debated by the states before they were ratified. Also, the contemporary documentation surrounding the discussions around "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
When exploring original intent, the Founding Fathers were worse than the NRA on their gun-freedom, gun-loving. Some contemporary interpretations of the Second Amendment meant that the people were required to own arms, maintain them, and be prepared to serve and defend as needed. That's quite far removed from the modern interpretation of the Bill of Rights. That's a violation of the first amendment: forcing the people to keep and bear arms. Remember, there were peaceful people, religious people, pacifists, that were colonials. Highly unlikely that the group of "required to be armed" people got much tractions.
Not only were arms allowed to "the people", meaning every single denizen (not citizen, denizen) was allowed arms. Bearing arms was viewed as such an essential right that Thomas Jefferson compared it to fire, food, and water.
Just read how this eloquent man put it:
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with case and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty-so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator-and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.
He's...almost as wordy as that Skywalker Star Wars kid but far more eloquent.
Regardless, to get to the bottom of your statement about super powerful weapons: did they intend "The People" to own highly destructive arms such as bombs and cannons? Or, as you worded it, "the right to any and all weapons." Can a private citizen own a surface to air missile under the Founders' interpretations of the Second Amendment?
Why, yes, you can! Private citizens often owned cannons especially merchants. This included missiles that delivered explosive payloads: similar to but very primitive compared to your surface-to-air missile concept.
Also, and quite often, the people who had the right to keep and bear arms were referred to as "free men." Why? Because one of the most famous examples is of a private citizen owning a friggin' warship (armed to the teeth and certainly among the most powerful offensive weapons of war around at the time) was a black man, a free man! So, yes, the intention most certainly would have been to allow the private citizens to own cannons. If you interpret that to mean that a private citizen can own a surface-to-air missile and launcher, that would be within the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Types of grenades were certainly a thing, then, too.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm
https://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20131016/pub02/310160345
I highly doubt any of you will genuinely read this post, make the effort to understand US History, and make the effort to understand Original Intent for the US Constitution. You will only take out of this conversation what you feel represents your position. Which is stupid. Some Authoritarians don't even participate in the liberal and libertarian debate about the right to bear arms: they want to repeal the Second Amendment because they know full well that the Second Amendment intended to arm all denizens. While deplorable that they would seek to remove the people's rights (bastards, the lot of them!) but not actually do anything to stop intentional homicides, they are taking the correct approach.
I never understand the whole
"Get rid of the 2nd Amendment."
Or
"Ban guns."
...Like ok let's say that happens right. Criminals are still criminals, laws won't stop them. Even in the event that they can't get guns...well it's not like they can't jury rig some contraption out of scraps if they feel so inclined to wanna go on a murder spree.
None of this banning nonsense would work, people would just end up finding other ways or just get the guns because what does the law matter to them? They are already breaking it.
Originally posted by Zenwolf
I never understand the whole"Get rid of the 2nd Amendment."
Or
"Ban guns."
...Like ok let's say that happens right. Criminals are still criminals, laws won't stop them. Even in the event that they can't get guns...well it's not like they can't jury rig some contraption out of scraps if they feel so inclined to wanna go on a murder spree.
None of this banning nonsense would work, people would just end up finding other ways or just get the guns because what does the law matter to them? They are already breaking it.
Also, if you ban guns, you make a ton of criminals immediately. Which is why there is usually a grace period for:
1. The people to rise up and kill the government that tried to take away their right to keep and bear arms (one of the literal and actual reasons the second amendment exists)
2. Appeal and get such a stupid law overturned.
I wonder how much money and time has been wasted by the anti-gun and pro-gun lobbies when we should have been tackling a universal healthcare solution this entire time?
The U.S. could never effectively ban guns and expect violence to be curbed. The country contains 10s of millions of trigger-happy, bloodthirsty, violence-addicted patriots who live in a system that's been failing them a hundred different ways since they were born. You guys are f*cked with or without your precious guns.
Originally posted by Zenwolf
I never understand the whole"Get rid of the 2nd Amendment."
Or
"Ban guns."
...Like ok let's say that happens right. Criminals are still criminals, laws won't stop them. Even in the event that they can't get guns...well it's not like they can't jury rig some contraption out of scraps if they feel so inclined to wanna go on a murder spree.
None of this banning nonsense would work, people would just end up finding other ways or just get the guns because what does the law matter to them? They are already breaking it.
Also if Trump is awful and we're in such a crisis and he's a fascist and he loves nazis I don't get why these same folk are so eager for him to disarm the populace.
I can conclude one of two things from this:
-they don't believe what they say
-they suffer from insanity
Originally posted by Surtur
Also if Trump is awful and we're in such a crisis and he's a fascist and he loves nazis I don't get why these same folk are so eager for him to disarm the populace.I can conclude one of two things from this:
-they don't believe what they say
-they suffer from insanity
^ Surt using a twisted variation of the Nazi Gun Control Argument. Nice 👆
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The U.S. could never effectively ban guns and expect violence to be curbed. The country contains 10s of millions of trigger-happy, bloodthirsty, violence-addicted patriots who live in a system that's been failing them a hundred different ways since they were born. You guys are f*cked with or without your precious guns.
Very accurate. 👆
It's a culture problem.
If you subtract out all the violence from the African American community, however, we reach near parity with other European Countries. Not as low as Japan, obviously. We have a black violence problem in the US and nobody seems to really care about it. It's culture, not race. I've posted about this before, many times - evidence shows that Subharan African immigrants are better behaved, educated, etc. bla bla bla than even the white population. If it was really a "race" issue, then black immigrants would be just as bad as the existing black population. Not true. Not even close.
It's a black culture issue that needs to be fixed.
And I think some of the poorer white crime problems we have (the meth heads, drug runners, etc.) could be addressed by a universal healthcare option. At least some of it.
Originally posted by dadudemonA UHC would benefit you guys a ton. Just addressing two major drawbacks inherent to your medical system-- debt from treatments, and fear of debt discouraging treatment-- would go extremely far for improving the country as a whole. In time. But because its not an instant fix and is a useful political shortcut for screaming "socialist", the current system persists.
Very accurate. 👆It's a culture problem.
If you subtract out all the violence from the African American community, however, we reach near parity with other European Countries. Not as low as Japan, obviously. We have a black violence problem in the US and nobody seems to really care about it. It's culture, not race. I've posted about this before, many times - evidence shows that Subharan African immigrants are better behaved, educated, etc. bla bla bla than even the white population. If it was really a "race" issue, then black immigrants would be just as bad as the existing black population. Not true. Not even close.
It's a black culture issue that needs to be fixed.
And I think some of the poorer white crime problems we have (the meth heads, drug runners, etc.) could be addressed by a universal healthcare option. At least some of it.
If there's one thing that tax money should absolutely be devoted to, it's the literal health of the population.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
A UHC would benefit you guys a ton. Just addressing two major drawbacks inherent to your medical system-- debt from treatments, and fear of debt discouraging treatment-- would go extremely far for improving the country as a whole. In time. But because its not an instant fix and is a useful political shortcut for screaming "socialist", the current system persists.If there's one thing that tax money should absolutely be devoted to, it's the literal health of the population.
👆
Stupid Republicans.
The tens of thousands of lives, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives, that could be saved each year. The economic productivity benefits, alone, would be worth the effort. Imagine a healthy, less-anxious, working population? There are probably special interests working to keep the US Economy from booming like that by preventing a UHC option from being implemented.
Imagine if being pro-life also meant being pro-health, so that the hundreds of billions of dollars that go toward paying the medical industry (or financial sectors for loans for the medical industry) went toward the rest of the U.S. economy? Debt forgiveness was used in ancient times to stimulate economies or prevent collapses, and medical debt is the top personal debt incurred by a majority of American households. UHC + medical debt forgiveness.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien👆 brilliant plan!
Imagine if being pro-life also meant being pro-health, so that the hundreds of billions of dollars that go toward paying the medical industry (or financial sectors for loans for the medical industry) went toward the rest of the U.S. economy? Debt forgiveness was used in ancient times to stimulate economies or prevent collapses, and medical debt is the top personal debt incurred by a majority of American households. UHC + medical debt forgiveness.
Originally posted by ArchaeopteryxThat's a little extreme mate. The top 1% and the political and corporate classes are killing everything. The average person wants a roof over them and their families, food on the table and a few years retirement before they die.
I'm getting to the point where I just don't care if people get killed. Humanity is in no danger of going extinct, and we are killing everything else
Originally posted by Putinbot1
That's a little extreme mate. The top 1% and the political and corporate classes are killing everything. The average person wants a roof over them and their families, food on the table and a few years retirement before they die.
Aren't you in the ballpark of being in the top 1%, though? I now you're not killing everything.