Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Gee]

I am not an expert in American politics. But I think updating is necessary to any field, even to a constitution. It can hurt the minds of the traditional fellows, but in the long run the updates are necessary and will do more good than harm, if the changes and updates are done with a good will.

Have you never heard that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?

Maybe it will help you to understand if you consider that England has a monarchy, which gives it tradition and stability. America does not have that, so our Constitution is what gives us tradition and stability. Suggesting change to the Constitution is much like me suggesting that England acquire a new royal family as this one has become a disappointment.

Gee

[Gee]

I am not an expert in law, and had no formal education in the field. But I have some friends who studied law, and I have sit with them while they get ready to their exams (just out of interest). Among those discussions I got the feeling that the problem with the laws is that they can be interpreted in many ways, and the clever lalawyers find more and more ways to do so. And when a court decision is given in a novel way, the following similar kind of cases are given similar decisions quoting that previous decision. I am sorry if I am wrongfully accusing anyone, but I think it is an issue in the application, but not in the laws itself. I think this is applicable to the second amendment of the US constitution as well.

I am not an expert either, but I have some knowledge. Most law is legislated, where it is written by a legislative body. But no one can write a law that covers all eventualities -- it is not possible. To keep this simple, we will say that a man is arrested for beating another man half to death. When the case goes to court, it is discovered that the defendant beat the other man to get him off of the defendant's nine year old daughter, that the man was attempting to molest. Well, this changes things, and the defendant is not guilty of beating the other man because he was defending his daughter. Although not legislated, the judgement in this case changes the law under specific circumstances. This is called case law and is what you are talking about above. Precedence can be established by case law.

The second amendment is Constitutional law, which is a little different. This law is not about crime or suing someone; it is about rights and responsibilities. If you want the right to self govern, then you have the responsibility to self govern, which means voting and defending your country -- both of which have been under attack lately.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe that this talk of changing the Constitution in order to resolve the problem of people shooting kids in schools is a "knee-jerk reaction". That is why I can not support the idea.

Simply to "talk" of changing the Constitution is not really a knee-jerk reaction; it isn't really even a reaction, but only a preparation to make a reaction.

It may not be a reaction, but it is certainly a misdirection that prevents the actual problems from being addressed.

But the logic apparent to people in most of the rest of the world - that more guns make more killings more likely - doesn't seem to impress Americans. Why is that, I wonder?

How about because it is nonsense? Misdirection? BS? Read this thread again, and you will find that there is almost no information about the actual shootings or the motivation behind those shootings. This thread is all about the Constitution and how to corrupt or take down the Constitution, which means to take down the government, which means that it is an attack on democracy, which makes people want to protect their gun rights. This attack is just as dangerous as Trump's attack on democracy. This thread has nothing to do with the kids -- that is just an emotional ploy to get attention.

As noted before: There. Is. NO. Causal. Relationship. Between. The US Constitution. And School Kids. Being Shot!

People are just rambling on without evidence and facts to support their Utopian beliefs.

Gee

Your attachment to your Constitution clearly goes well beyond the intellectual, into the emotional arena, just like any fondly-held belief. And so I will not discuss this any further with you. We cannot continue unless I directly attack views you hold dear, and nothing worthwhile would come from that.

[Sculptor1]

Never forget the little children who continue to give up their lives to protect your right to bear arms.
Their struggle to continually give up their lives is an unending task.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61192975

Guns overtook car crashes to become the leading cause of death for US children and teenagers in 2020, new research shows.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that over 4,300 young Americans died of firearm-related injuries in 2020.

[Gee]

Never forget the little children who continue to give up their lives to protect your right to bear arms.

I am surprised at you. You are usually more intelligent than this -- except your issues with the religion forum. The above statement is rude, insulting, and is nothing even close to truth. You owe me an apology.

Their struggle to continually give up their lives is an unending task.

This statement is also emotional claptrap and obvious manipulation. Why is it that people come to this forum, write posts that argue the importance of truth, then write things like the above statement that would fit better in a gossip magazine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61192975

Guns overtook car crashes to become the leading cause of death for US children and teenagers in 2020, new research shows.

The problem is that I don't really believe this information because too much is called "research", that is in fact just statistics that someone put together. Did they compare anything other than crashes and guns? Do all children die from one of these two things? Did they skip other pertinent information? If in fact, this is true, would changing the Constitution make a difference? They even admitted that, "'The reasons for the increase are unclear,' the research letter said." so they did not truly research this problem. They just pulled statistics and assumed a great deal.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that over 4,300 young Americans died of firearm-related injuries in 2020.

Because the news and politicians and special interest groups all have computers and access to statistics, they manipulate information to support their causes. This has led to a great deal of misinformation and a lack of faith and trust in what information we are given. Because of this, I personally like to turn off the TV and internet, and look out the front door for the reality that affects my life. I know of one person, who died from a gun shot. That was my brother's boss, who committed suicide about 50 years ago. I know of three people, who died from car accidents. One was caused by a drunk driver about 35 years ago -- we lost a 2 year old nephew; another was caused by terrible weather -- about 30 years ago -- a friend's son's friend was killed; and a friend of my daughter's was killed in a car accident about 20 years ago. My son also lost a friend in an accident, but it was on a train track and had nothing to do with cars -- about 30 years ago. I know three people who died as a result of a surgeon's screw up -- one baby (a nephew) -- my ex -- and a friend of my mother's.

I don't trust your statistics, don't believe it is actual research, would like information from a actuary and would like to know who is paying that actuary for the information, and would also like to know what the fook this has to do with the Constitution. Last time I checked, there was no Amendment that gives the right to shoot children.

Gee

[Sculptor1]

Never forget the little children who continue to give up their lives to protect your right to bear arms.

I am surprised at you. You are usually more intelligent than this -- except your issues with the religion forum. The above statement is rude, insulting, and is nothing even close to truth. You owe me an apology.

Their struggle to continually give up their lives is an unending task.

This statement is also emotional claptrap and obvious manipulation. Why is it that people come to this forum, write posts that argue the importance of truth, then write things like the above statement that would fit better in a gossip magazine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61192975

Guns overtook car crashes to become the leading cause of death for US children and teenagers in 2020, new research shows.

The problem is that I don't really believe this information because too much is called "research", that is in fact just statistics that someone put together. Did they compare anything other than crashes and guns? Do all children die from one of these two things? Did they skip other pertinent information? If in fact, this is true, would changing the Constitution make a difference? They even admitted that, "'The reasons for the increase are unclear,' the research letter said." so they did not truly research this problem. They just pulled statistics and assumed a great deal.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that over 4,300 young Americans died of firearm-related injuries in 2020.

Because the news and politicians and special interest groups all have computers and access to statistics, they manipulate information to support their causes. This has led to a great deal of misinformation and a lack of faith and trust in what information we are given. Because of this, I personally like to turn off the TV and internet, and look out the front door for the reality that affects my life. I know of one person, who died from a gun shot. That was my brother's boss, who committed suicide about 50 years ago. I know of three people, who died from car accidents. One was caused by a drunk driver about 35 years ago -- we lost a 2 year old nephew; another was caused by terrible weather -- about 30 years ago -- a friend's son's friend was killed; and a friend of my daughter's was killed in a car accident about 20 years ago. My son also lost a friend in an accident, but it was on a train track and had nothing to do with cars -- about 30 years ago. I know three people who died as a result of a surgeon's screw up -- one baby (a nephew) -- my ex -- and a friend of my mother's.

I don't trust your statistics, don't believe it is actual research, would like information from a actuary and would like to know who is paying that actuary for the information, and would also like to know what the fook this has to do with the Constitution. Last time I checked, there was no Amendment that gives the right to shoot children.

Gee

I have struck a nerve since you have previously failed to see the problem from the point of view of the dead children.
Not only are you in denial of their deaths, but you laughingly chose to deny the fact that gun death is the highest cause of child mortality in the USA.
As we speak there have already been over 230 mass shootings, and the yea is young.
On the same day that the Supreme Court repealed Roe V Wade they also passed judgement that allows 18 year old children to carry concealed weapons.
And yet you can't find it in your heart to see that American is broken.
And all you have to counter the BBC and CDC is some personal anecdote about car crashes that happened decades ago.
And YOU ask ME for an apology.?

So you do not trust the CDC. So how many children do die from guns?? Tell me!
How many dead children is enough for you?
How many ruined lives are enough to satisfy your childish relish of guns?

[CIN]

Because the news and politicians and special interest groups all have computers and access to statistics, they manipulate information to support their causes. This has led to a great deal of misinformation and a lack of faith and trust in what information we are given. Because of this, I personally like to turn off the TV and internet, and look out the front door for the reality that affects my life. I know of one person, who died from a gun shot. That was my brother's boss, who committed suicide about 50 years ago.

Sounds rather like looking out of your door, seeing the world around you looks flat, and inferring that the round earth theory must be wrong.

America is a big place. Just because few people get shot in your bit of it, doesn't mean that they aren't getting shot in other parts.

Last time I checked, there was no Amendment that gives the right to shoot children.

I don't think anyone here has suggested that. But there seems to be an Amendment that gives a great many people the means and opportunity to shoot children.

[CIN]

I am not an expert in American politics. But I think updating is necessary to any field, even to a constitution. It can hurt the minds of the traditional fellows, but in the long run the updates are necessary and will do more good than harm, if the changes and updates are done with a good will.

Have you never heard that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?

Maybe it will help you to understand if you consider that England has a monarchy, which gives it tradition and stability. America does not have that, so our Constitution is what gives us tradition and stability. Suggesting change to the Constitution is much like me suggesting that England acquire a new royal family as this one has become a disappointment.

Gee

We do occasionally modify the monarchy here in the UK, to bring it more into line with modern views. The Succession to the Crown Act in 2015 made three changes: removing male primogeniture (where younger brothers succeeded to the throne before elder sisters), removing the disqualification of those who marry Roman Catholics, and changing the rules whereby the monarch has to give approval to royal marriages. None of these amounts to scrapping our royal family.

If we can make changes like this to our monarchy, you can make changes to your Constitution. All you need to do is think outside the box.

[Pattern-chaser]

Suggesting change to the Constitution is much like me suggesting that England acquire a new royal family as this one has become a disappointment.

Your suggestion should be given serious consideration, I think. And perhaps we should also consider not having a 'Royal' family at all, and becoming a Republic?

[CIN]

And perhaps we should also consider not having a 'Royal' family at all, and becoming a Republic?

And end up like America? Seriously?

[Vita]

I am not an expert in American politics. But I think updating is necessary to any field, even to a constitution. It can hurt the minds of the traditional fellows, but in the long run the updates are necessary and will do more good than harm, if the changes and updates are done with a good will.

Have you never heard that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?

Maybe it will help you to understand if you consider that England has a monarchy, which gives it tradition and stability. America does not have that, so our Constitution is what gives us tradition and stability. Suggesting change to the Constitution is much like me suggesting that England acquire a new royal family as this one has become a disappointment.

Gee

We do occasionally modify the monarchy here in the UK, to bring it more into line with modern views. The Succession to the Crown Act in 2015 made three changes: removing male primogeniture (where younger brothers succeeded to the throne before elder sisters), removing the disqualification of those who marry Roman Catholics, and changing the rules whereby the monarch has to give approval to royal marriages. None of these amounts to scrapping our royal family.

If we can make changes like this to our monarchy, you can make changes to your Constitution. All you need to do is think outside the box.

I would like to know what you and PatternChaser propose changing. The Founding Fathers created the constitution vaguely to fit a variety of futures, so I would be interested to know what is wrong with it.

[Sy Borg]

Suffice to say that other western nations are not following the US's approach to gun laws. Hmm, I wonder why?

[UniversalAlien]

This is the age of cynicism - especially when it comes to issues like politics and gun control

We just recently saw, and the hearings are still continuing, of what happens when a politician, Donald Trump, decides to overturn the
US Constitution and declare himself dictator in chief. For now he has failed - But the struggle continues.

We stand by the Constitution to prevent wanabe dictators from taking over
- And the Second Amendment is part of it.

Still common sense would tell even the staunchest supporter of the Second Amendment that most people under most circumstances
do not need high capacity so called assault rifles. I won't ban these guns but they should be restricted to special permits!
{You know you can even own a fully automatic machine gun in the United States but the background check and licensing is highly restricted and accordingly we rarely ever hear about murder and mayhem with these type of guns}

Now back to American children {and adults for that matter}, who have become targets of crazed terrorist, and that's what these mass
killers are terrorist, plain and simple - This is a plague in the United States, which under most circumstances where the terrorist is apprehended we just lock them up and feed them for free in a nice comfy jail cell for the rest of their lives where they can continue to live out their fantasies of murder and mayhem.

For these terrorists the death penalty should be mandatory, no exceptions, the execution of these war criminals should be shown to the
public on mass media - this cancer must be stopped, and taking away people's basic 'right to bear arms' is not the answer

Americans, I believe would be willing to accept reasonable gun control measures, as was just shown in the passage of the bipartisan
bill restricting some gun purchases of those under 21 - As long as the basic Second Amendment rights are maintained.

[Pattern-chaser]

And perhaps we [UK] should also consider not having a 'Royal' family at all, and becoming a Republic?

And end up like America? Seriously?

There are many other republics, some of which might be considered to be more desirable, as examples, than the USA.

[Sy Borg]

American gun policies have been a train wreck that has strongly eroded the nation's credibility worldwide. How can anyone take advice from a nation that is in such obviously social disarray, whose systems are so broken that the nation cannot make the policy decisions it needs to thrive?

Hubris gets all empires in the end. The out-of-control gun situation is one of the fault lines that is rapidly bringing down the most powerful nation in world history.