There's something I want done, but I don't have any solutions as to ho

[wanamingo]

I don't think you can really question original intent. Original intent in quite clear. Just read the Federalist Papers. Read the the founders own words, not liberal professors' interpretations of the founders words.

I found some interesting Jefferson quotes about changing laws and the constitution.

"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801.

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.

 

[chunkymonster]

I dont agree that you cant question what the original intent was. There were no laws against nuclear weapons in the constitution, so it is my right to bear arms as I see fit. I want a tomahawk missile, and my birthday is coming up (ill see if I can put it up on my Amazon wishlist)....Or should there be restrictions on what kind of armament I can have. Can I own a tank?

Now 1927 - pretty much the early 90's are a little before my time but you did give me some incentive to do a little google research into gun control. You hit the nail on the head with the firearms act of 1927 but your logic gets fuzzy after that. The 80th "do nothing congress" went back into the hands of republicans so its not exactly as you paint it, since democrats didn't control the house and senate for the time you listed. If you read what the FAA of 1934 is trying to do was bans guns that mobsters were using to inflict mass damage, much like laws today. They tried to ban fully automatic and snub nosed rifles that you could conceal on your person, except for handguns. So basically everything you could stick in a pocket and shoot someone with that wasnt a handgun was punishable with a fine. Not the greatest law, but definitely not some part of the liberal agenda to take away your guns.

Firstly, I believe it fair and reasonable to state that the congress has been controlled by Democrats even with 2 years of return to Republican control in 1947. But if you want to split hairs on this point, I concede that for 2 years between 1933 and 1995, for 2 years out of 62 years there was a Republican majority in Congress.

As oldmangamer_73 pointed out, the original intent of the Founding Fathers is quite clear. The Constitution is written in concise and clear language easily understood by the common man; as the Founding Fathers intended to create a government where the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. So, the 2nd Amendment was quite plainly written to prevent the federal government from passing laws that infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The definition of "arms" as noted in the 2nd Amendment means "to equip with weapons". Therefore, the Founding Fathers intent was to prevent the federal government from writing laws that infringe on the people's ability equip themselves with weapons. Regardless of whether nuclear bombs, tomahawk cruise missiles, or fully automatic weapons existed during the lives of the Founding Fathers does not change what the Founding Fathers intended. Are nuclear bombs, tomahawk cruise missiles, tanks, and fully automatic firearms weapons? Yes they are. So, if you believe that the Constitution is the supreme law law of the land, and we as Americans we live under the rule of law, then yes; you have a Constitutional right to own nuclear bombs, tomahawk cruise missiles, tank, and fully automatic firearms.

If you look at every gun control law passed since 1934, the largely Democrat controlled congress exploited verbiage in the Constitution to pass laws to effectively change the intent and purpose of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers wrote in Article 1, Section 8, the specific and enumerated powers of the Congress and no where in Article 1, Section 8, does it state that Congress has the power to pass any law that infringes on the 2nd Amendment. But because the largely Democrat congress exploited the power to "excise taxes", laws like the Firearms Act of 1934 were passed in direct contradiction to the intent and purpose of the Founding Fathers and in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. By exploiting their ability excise taxes, the Congress usurped power from the people and blatantly infringed on the people's rights to keep and bear arms by implementing permits, registrations, and by placing limits on the size, type, and style of firearms that the people can own and manufacturers can make. Because those powers were never included in the enumerated powers of Congress under Article 1, Section 8 those gun laws are all infringements of the 2nd Amendment and technically unconstitutional.

I appreciate the fact that you state that the Firearms Act of 1934 was passed by exploiting the tragedy and carnage created by mobsters to ban guns. I also appreciate that you can see the obvious exploitation of a tragedy by modern day Democrats to propose and pass more gun control legislation in the wake of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. It is not coincidence, history has proven that a disarmed citizenry is a central theme to all socialist, marxist, and despotic governments. The first step that allows a government to become despotic and ignore the will of the people is when government, military, and law enforcement agencies are able to possess weapons that are illegal for the everyday citizen to own.

What's largely ignored and never spoken of by Democrats is that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the ability to change the intent and purpose of the Constitution and change the enumerated powers of Congress by means of the Amendment process. But because following the Amendment process requires the consent of the people and the States in order to get passed, the largely Democrat controlled congress chooses to exploit the verbiage in the Constitution and pervert the Founding Fathers intent to usurp power from the people and from the States. Let's face it, its not politically expedient to work through and gain consensus and votes for an Amendment when liberals and progressives can not see past their own ideology and agenda to fundamentally transform America from a republic to a social democracy.

 

[chunkymonster]

I found some interesting Jefferson quotes about changing laws and the constitution.

"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801.

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.

Let's keep these quotes in proper context. Thomas Jefferson supported an Amendment process as the legal and lawful means to change, update, or repeal Articles and Sections of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson did not support congress exploiting verbiage in the Constitution to grant itself powers not enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[wanamingo]

Firstly, I believe it fair and reasonable to state that the congress has been controlled by Democrats even with 2 years of return to Republican control in 1947. But if you want to split hairs on this point, I concede that for 2 years between 1933 and 1995, for 2 years out of 62 years there was a Republican majority in Congress.

As oldmangamer_73 pointed out, the original intent of the Founding Fathers is quite clear. The Constitution is written in concise and clear language easily understood by the common man; as the Founding Fathers intended to create a government where the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. So, the 2nd Amendment was quite plainly written to prevent the federal government from passing laws that infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The definition of "arms" as noted in the 2nd Amendment means "to equip with weapons". Therefore, the Founding Fathers intent was to prevent the federal government from writing laws that infringe on the people's ability equip themselves with weapons. Regardless of whether nuclear bombs, tomahawk cruise missiles, or fully automatic weapons existed during the lives of the Founding Fathers does not change what the Founding Fathers intended. Are nuclear bombs, tomahawk cruise missiles, tanks, and fully automatic firearms weapons? Yes they are. So, if you believe that the Constitution is the supreme law law of the land, and we as Americans we live under the rule of law, then yes; you have a Constitutional right to own nuclear bombs, tomahawk cruise missiles, tank, and fully automatic firearms.

If you look at every gun control law passed since 1934, the largely Democrat controlled congress exploited verbiage in the Constitution to pass laws to effectively change the intent and purpose of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers wrote in Article 1, Section 8, the specific and enumerated powers of the Congress and no where in Article 1, Section 8, does it state that Congress has the power to pass any law that infringes on the 2nd Amendment. But because the largely Democrat congress exploited the power to "excise taxes", laws like the Firearms Act of 1934 were passed in direct contradiction to the intent and purpose of the Founding Fathers and in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. By exploiting their ability excise taxes, the Congress usurped power from the people and blatantly infringed on the people's rights to keep and bear arms by implementing permits, registrations, and by placing limits on the size, type, and style of firearms that the people can own and manufacturers can make. Because those powers were never included in the enumerated powers of Congress under Article 1, Section 8 those gun laws are all infringements of the 2nd Amendment and technically unconstitutional.

I appreciate the fact that you state that the Firearms Act of 1934 was passed by exploiting the tragedy and carnage created by mobsters to ban guns. I also appreciate that you can see the obvious exploitation of a tragedy by modern day Democrats to propose and pass more gun control legislation in the wake of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. It is not coincidence, history has proven that a disarmed citizenry is a central theme to all socialist, marxist, and despotic governments. The first step that allows a government to become despotic and ignore the will of the people is when government, military, and law enforcement agencies are able to possess weapons that are illegal for the everyday citizen to own.

What's largely ignored and never spoken of by Democrats is that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the ability to change the intent and purpose of the Constitution and change the enumerated powers of Congress by means of the Amendment process. But because following the Amendment process requires the consent of the people and the States in order to get passed, the largely Democrat controlled congress chooses to exploit the verbiage in the Constitution and pervert the Founding Fathers intent to usurp power from the people and from the States. Let's face it, its not politically expedient to work through and gain consensus and votes for an Amendment when liberals and progressives can not see past their own ideology and agenda to fundamentally transform America from a republic to a social democracy.

I understand your points and personally Im not a constitutional scholar (I just play one when I have access to the internet). Im really not interested in arguing politics from the middle of the 20th century, but just some quick research show that the 83rd, 97th, 98th, 99th, 104th congress didn't have a democratic majority. But again that's besides the point.

Im also not arguing that the original architects of the constitution weren't clear. They were very specific, the right to bear arms applies to all citizens. But I also dont believe its wise to say a 200 year old document is infallible. Those quotes I provided showed that Jefferson had some intention of creating a living document, one that changed as a nation changes reflecting our current moral and social values. At the time a few hundred minutemen could feasibly capture a city and hold it, so it make sense to arm citizens or allow them to arm themselves. If you looked at the system that the British had at the time, it only allowed for guns to be brought into game forests or if you were wealthy enough to pay for all of the permits you could carry one on your person, and arm your guards / private army. This makes it tricky when a population has had all of their guns removed to have any influence over their governing. That made perfect sense for the time, they built a framework that would protect citizens from being helpless against their government, which is incredibly important. Now the USA has the most powerful military on the planet, what precautions would we provide for the average citizen that would protect them from F22's? An uzi? A nuke? Another F22 (this will also be on my amazon wishlist) ? No dont be silly, the American military would never turn on their own citizens, ask some army friends (I have a hunch you know some people in the armed forces...) if they were ordered to kill civilians what they would do. None of them would comply, and thats our real strength. Not in military might, or how powerful the guns are we are allowed to keep under our pillows but unity as a country.

But you keep deviating from what every person on this thread has been saying. No one wants to take away your guns. I dont want people have access to weapons more powerful than they need. Who needs a fully automatic weapon with armor piercing rounds to defend themselves with? Not many.... Now Oldman makes some good points about self defense, thats fine. Im completely down with citizens owning small arms for defending themselves or guns for hunting. Something needs to be fixed with the system and hiding behind the 2nd amendment to completely avoid having a discussion is counter productive to the max. Im not pretending to know what that is either, Ive got some ideas..... but more than anything its important to have the discussion, and saying you cant ever change laws concerning what kind of weapons people can own is irresponsible.

Do you really think its just fine for a citizen to arm themselves with a nuclear weapon?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The government that governs best governs least.
Can there be better ways?
Of course, but watching MSNBC yesterday, someone there was calling on congress as a failure, as it has passed fewer laws than most in our history.
Now, the obvious is so obvious.
Change for changes sake is not the intention, nor looking busy by passing laws wont satisfy the people.
So, just what did Jefferson propose here?
A POV can attribute it in either direction, but saying the government that governs best governs least shows his intent, and not a living document, but the best of all documents

 

[Reynod]

Chunky your point below here is a bit paranoid eh?

Here in Australia we are a largely disarmed but none of us feel like the politicians are despots or that we are under some iron rule.

We just vote the idiots out if they get up our nose.

It is not coincidence, history has proven that a disarmed citizenry is a central theme to all socialist, marxist, and despotic governments. The first step that allows a government to become despotic and ignore the will of the people is when government, military, and law enforcement agencies are able to possess weapons that are illegal for the everyday citizen to own.

 

[musical marv]

I giggled.

No problem.

 

[musical marv]

Did you know the movie theater where the shootings happened in Aurora was a "gun free" zone?

Do you also know that the movie house is also crime ridden and plenty of bigotry is there with the Blacks.Also a shooting happened there a few years back.

 

[musical marv]

??????

Google the Aurora Theater and find out what I am referring to.

 

[Reynod]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/rep-gohmert-did-no-one-else-in-aurora-theater-have-a-gun/

Jeez you have some rednecks in positions of power over there ...

 

[chunkymonster]

Im also not arguing that the original architects of the constitution weren't clear. They were very specific, the right to bear arms applies to all citizens. But I also dont believe its wise to say a 200 year old document is infallible. Those quotes I provided showed that Jefferson had some intention of creating a living document, one that changed as a nation changes reflecting our current moral and social values.

I agree that the Constitution is fallible. Jefferson was wise to support an Amendment process. Even Madison, a staunch Federalist, came to see the need to limit federal powers and enumerate specific and individual rights as a means to rally the People against a future oppressive federal government. But both Madison and Jefferson believed in following the Amendment process as the primary means to change the intent and purpose of the Constitution; which is a very different belief and form of governance compared to what is practiced today.

At the time a few hundred minutemen could feasibly capture a city and hold it, so it make sense to arm citizens or allow them to arm themselves. If you looked at the system that the British had at the time, it only allowed for guns to be brought into game forests or if you were wealthy enough to pay for all of the permits you could carry one on your person, and arm your guards / private army. This makes it tricky when a population has had all of their guns removed to have any influence over their governing. That made perfect sense for the time, they built a framework that would protect citizens from being helpless against their government, which is incredibly important. Now the USA has the most powerful military on the planet, what precautions would we provide for the average citizen that would protect them from F22's? An uzi? A nuke? Another F22 (this will also be on my amazon wishlist) ? No dont be silly, the American military would never turn on their own citizens, ask some army friends (I have a hunch you know some people in the armed forces...) if they were ordered to kill civilians what they would do. None of them would comply, and thats our real strength. Not in military might, or how powerful the guns are we are allowed to keep under our pillows but unity as a country.

True, I have yet to talk to any inactive or active military that would willingly and knowingly open fire on American citizens. Thankfully, it is unthinkable for our military and political leaders to use the armed forces against our own citizens. But, I also believe it is the 2nd Amendment that prevents America from falling under despotic rule, prevents the military from turning on the People, and prevents the Federal government from blatantly disregarding our Constitutional and civil rights.

But you keep deviating from what every person on this thread has been saying. No one wants to take away your guns.

Here's where semantics come into play. The OP calls for..."sensible and meaningful REGULATE GUN CONTROL"...it's all the same, words like "sensible", "meaningful", "regulation", "gun control" are are ALL euphemisms that mean the same thing, infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Only by lying to ourselves do we believe that something "sensible", "reasonable", or for the "good of the people" does not take you one step farther away from a Constitutional Republic or does not diminish our civil rights. At the time, politicians and citizens called the Patriot Act "sensible" and "reasonable" for protecting Americans from terrorists but the reality we live with is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment. The real joke of further calls for gun control is that they always seem to come at a time when gun control advocates can exploit a tragedy (like Aurora, Colorado) which only adds suspicion to their intentions.

I dont want people have access to weapons more powerful than they need. Who needs a fully automatic weapon with armor piercing rounds to defend themselves with? Not many.... Now Oldman makes some good points about self defense, thats fine. Im completely down with citizens owning small arms for defending themselves or guns for hunting.

There's the rub. Who determines style and type of firearms is "too powerful"? Who determines that armor piercing bullets are "unnecessary" for self defense? This is why limits were places on the federal government where the Constitution intended to leave those answer to the States or the People themselves; the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Something needs to be fixed with the system and hiding behind the 2nd amendment to completely avoid having a discussion is counter productive to the max. Im not pretending to know what that is either, Ive got some ideas..... but more than anything its important to have the discussion, and saying you cant ever change laws concerning what kind of weapons people can own is irresponsible.

I'm not entirely sure that something needs to be done to "fix" current Federal gun control legislation. I do not agree that more Federal gun legislation would have stopped what happened in Aurora, Colorado. And, I do not agree that defending the 2nd Amendment in light of gun control advocates wanting to exploit the tragedy in Colorado is "hiding behind the 2nd Amendment to completely avoid having a discussion".

What happened in Colorado does not demonstrate the flaws or failures of Federal Gun Control Laws, it demonstrates the flaws and failures of society to recognize and provide the necessary help to a mentally unstable person. It demonstrates the flaws and failures of the Colorado State laws that enabled a mentally unstable person to purchase and arm himself to such an extent.

If there is any conversation to be had, it should first be about society and health care system that failed to recognize a mentally unstable person and ensure the received the help they needed. If there is any conversation to be had, it should be about Colorado State gun laws (not Federal gun laws) that allowed a mentally unstable person to purchase those firearms and ammunition. If there is a conversation, it should be centered around Colorado and not made into a national crisis or convenient election year talking point.

Do you really think its just fine for a citizen to arm themselves with a nuclear weapon?

Of course not! But, in order to have an intellectually honest conversation about gun control, we have to remove the emotional and subjective overtones and focus on the underlying reasons and causes of tragedies like those in Aurora, Colorado.

To be completely honest, I do not believe there is any answer that can address what happened in Aurora, Colorado. Fact is, if a mentally unstable or outright evil person wants to commit heinous acts of violence, there are no amount of laws, regulations, or restrictions that can stop them. And, if such laws did exist, they would be so draconian and totalitarian they would be completely incompatible with the American Constitutional Republic.

I can appreciate that tragedies like that in Aurora, Colorado make some people feel powerless and move them to act so such an incident never happens again. But maybe, instead of thinking of ways to prevent them from happening, which ultimately restricts the rights of others, they should embrace the fact that they are powerless to stop them from happening, embrace the fact that tragedies happen, and embrace the notion that we need to covet our Constitutional freedoms and hold living in a free society as sacred despite such tragedies.

 

[chunkymonster]

Chunky your point below here is a bit paranoid eh?

Here in Australia we are a largely disarmed but none of us feel like the politicians are despots or that we are under some iron rule.

We just vote the idiots out if they get up our nose.

It is not coincidence, history has proven that a disarmed citizenry is a central theme to all socialist, marxist, and despotic governments. The first step that allows a government to become despotic and ignore the will of the people is when government, military, and law enforcement agencies are able to possess weapons that are illegal for the everyday citizen to own.

Generally speaking, I don't think I'm paranoid when I have the simple expectation to be able to exercise my Constitutional rights and then have my elected politicians act in a way that diminishes or takes away those rights.

Overall, it's hard to compare Australia with America when it comes to gun control. The relationship between Aussies and firearms is completely different from the relationship between Americans and their firearms. If anything, given the Australian Constitution and the way the National Firearms Agreement was passed, if I were a gun owner or shooting enthusiast in Australia, I'd be pretty pissed off.

 

[musical marv]

Gohmert hits the nail on the head. Those loveable rednecks, sigh.

To bad no one takes out Gohmert he is a sheer waste! Moronic statements he makes which have no logic at all.

 

[Reynod]

Generally speaking, I don't think I'm paranoid when I have the simple expectation to be able to exercise my Constitutional rights and then have my elected politicians act in a way that diminishes or takes away those rights.

Overall, it's hard to compare Australia with America when it comes to gun control. The relationship between Aussies and firearms is completely different from the relationship between Americans and their firearms. If anything, given the Australian Constitution and the way the National Firearms Agreement was passed, if I were a gun owner or shooting enthusiast in Australia, I'd be pretty pissed off.

The gun nuts were pretty upset ... but most people moved on.

Mind you we have had a few bikie wars with shootings recently ... gangland stuff.

They seem to shoot each other and their houses and cars ... and families.

Crazy ...

 

[Reynod]

Are you advocating for the murder of a government official Marv? Not very wise my friend.

Good point ... whilst in many countries we like to throw eggs, shoes and other sundry items at elected officials ... one is not permitted as a US citizen to make death threats toward the boss or any of the other elected officials.

You may sneer, call them goatbuttsniffers ... or post doctored pictures of them in Llama suits.

I personally think thats a pretty good law.

Marv ... you should retract / modify your statement accordingly ...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I think he meant to say, take him out to dinner, dress him in a lama suit, feed him rotten eggs and toss him a shoe to pay the check

 

[musical marv]

Are you advocating for the murder of a government official Marv? Not very wise my friend.

I hate him that much. he is a waste!

 

[musical marv]

Are you advocating for the murder of a government official Marv? Not very wise my friend.

I am saying that people like him are a waste of existence!

 

[Reynod]

Fair enough Marv ... may I suggest shoe throwing?

It seems to be rapidly gaining in popularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shoe_throwing_incidents

As a recipient you just want to be careful the person throwing the shoe doesn't work in a mine and have feel like Phelps or Thorpe ... a 4kg steelcap boot could be lethal.

 

[chunkymonster]

To bad no one takes out Gohmert he is a sheer waste! Moronic statements he makes which have no logic at all.

I hate him that much. he is a waste!

I am saying that people like him are a waste of existence!

Typical hate spewing liberal...

Don't hide your thoughts Marv, tell us how you really feel!

 

[musical marv]

Typical hate spewing liberal...

Don't hide your thoughts Marv, tell us how you really feel!

That is how I feel i hate the Republicans immensely.

 

[4Ryan6]

oldmangamer_73 wrote :

Are you advocating for the murder of a government official Marv? Not very wise my friend.

I hate him that much. he is a waste!

Be careful Marv, that you don't become the very thing you hate!

 

[chunkymonster]

That is how I feel i hate the Republicans immensely.

Wow! You remind me of an angry young man standing and shaking a fist at the night sky cursing the darkness.

Hate is such a strong word, Marv. Is this how you demonstrate the liberal ideology of diversity, inclusion, and tolerance?

To quote Elvis Costello, "what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?"

 

[Reynod]

An angry liberal reacts with words ... an angry conservative tends to load up trucks with ANFO and look for targets.

Angry liberals can be persuaded with logic.

Angry conservatives are armed to the teeth and itching to shoot at something.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

According to the fbi, liberals have caused the greatest terrorist attacks in the US by far.
If you go by voting, liberals kill many more than anyone else as well in the US with handguns