JonSnow4President Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 You know, the whole Constitution thing is supposed to take care of protection of the minority against oppressive majority rule. I would say that if someone is being denied their Constitutionally established rights, or if a law is dealing with these, a super majority should be required, and even then it must be deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. But if it's not touching on those issues? There's no problem with a "mere" majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Oh, I wouldn't doubt it based on the people I'm around, but I'm in the South and grew up in a hunting family, so I'm in the concentrated area.The biggest complaint I hear is not necessarily restrictions on gun ownership, but rather a lack of trust in the government (which I think is well founded) to implement it in a way that actually works and doesn't destroy the rights of people who are not the problem.Any law does that, to a degree. Tanks might be fun to own, but the people who'd abuse it are the reason the rest of us can't have one. People-killing guns are an issue in the U.S. because people have imbued them with a meaning they don't inherently possess, at least not in a way very distinct from tanks or rocket launchers. If you limit gun access to hunting guns, within a generation or 2 people wouldn't care anymore. It's an idealistic habit, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonSnow4President Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Any law does that, to a degree. Tanks might be fun to own, but the people who'd abuse it are the reason the rest of us can't have one. People-killing guns are an issue in the U.S. because people have imbued them with a meaning they don't inherently possess, at least not in a way very distinct from tanks or rocket launchers. If you limit gun access to hunting guns, within a generation or 2 people wouldn't care anymore. It's an idealistic habit, really.Yes and no. Just off the top of my head, I'd say Education legislation, transportation, most business regulation, hunting laws, etc, don't really infringe on the established rights of those who are governed. I don't think there'd be an issue getting a super majority against tanks or RPGs, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 1) Yes and no. Just off the top of my head, I'd say Education legislation, transportation, most business regulation, hunting laws, etc, don't really infringe on the established rights of those who are governed. 2) I don't think there'd be an issue getting a super majority against tanks or RPGs, either.1) I could argue these on point, I guess, but not feeling it and I think it's better served by altering my statement to 'restrictive laws'. 2) No doubt, but the question is 'why not'? The same principles/potential governmental abuses/slippery slope peril etc. exist. That's what I mean by habit...for those for whom it's an idealistic issue, it is so almost entirely because of habit. In point of fact, rocket launchers would be more effective in a fight vs. tyranny, and when it comes to a deterrent to criminals, tanks >>>>> guns. But it's not really about those things, it's about habits. Americans are in the habit of thinking certain types of weapon are identified with freedom and safety, and it's hard to break a habit, whatever the data/logic involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 JA,I've been reading Walden. Maybe that's why I'm thinking on these lines right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 JA,I've been reading Walden. Maybe that's why I'm thinking on these lines right now.From what I recall, it's lovely, and topical. But for priming myself for political debate, I prefer P. G. Wodehouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 That's the problem. People do want better control of firearms (not outright ban) but the NRA lobby has so much power that it'll never get done with Congress. Representatives are only worried about re-election and campaign funds, not making laws about things that make logical sense.Me feelings exactly. It's unfortunate because if the NRA stopped freaking out and fighting every possible "gun reform" suggestion and instead became part of the solution, we could get a to a safer solution more quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 There isn't a viable alternative. Having majority rule with a system of checks and balances is our best option.Generally, yes.The US (and to a lesser extent, UK) has some ingrained problems though. Mainly that the way voting works in the US and UK leads to issues such as gerrymandering and an entrenched two-party system (the latter less so in the UK; but the last election's results were massively disproportionate to actual votes as a result). You might have to look into getting rid of the entire first past the post system to change this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Me feelings exactly. It's unfortunate because if the NRA stopped freaking out and fighting every possible "gun reform" suggestion and instead became part of the solution, we could get a to a safer solution more quickly. As the NRA offers Gun Safty classes you'd think they would be all about requireing safty classes before someone can purchase a firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 As the NRA offers Gun Safty classes you'd think they would be all about requireing safty classes before someone can purchase a firearm.That would be true if it represented gun owners, and not gun manufacturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 That would be true if it represented gun owners, and not gun manufacturers.How will we stand up to the NRA? If only there were a segment of the population opposed to this kind of tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Why stop doing the only thing you're good at?::sniff::I think that's like... the nicest thing you've ever said to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 ::sniff::I think that's like... the nicest thing you've ever said to me! Put away your onion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Wasn't there a specific second amendment thread?Anyway, having that said. Since Mexal brought up the NRA, it reminded me of an article I read quite a while ago, probably shortly after Sandy Hook.http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-nra-vs-america-20130131?page=1 Since I am from a relatively gun free country (and I am quite happy with that), and I really don't get that unhealthy relationship Muricans have with their guns, I find it highly intereseting, that one side says: Closing that gun show loophole won't prevent school shootings. Which is probably true, but the question is, what kind of laws would in their opinion?Only an outright ban. Therein lies the problem.Me feelings exactly. It's unfortunate because if the NRA stopped freaking out and fighting every possible "gun reform" suggestion and instead became part of the solution, we could get a to a safer solution more quickly. Blaming this all on NRA propaganda is lazy and so general as to be meaningless. What safer solution compromise, specifically, are you talking about here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Blaming this all on NRA propaganda is lazy and so general as to be meaningless. What safer solution compromise, specifically, are you talking about here?Before we even get into specific policies, how about we lift the ban on research into the public health impact of firearms in the US? Can we all agree that research would help inform the debate and address potential solutions?This ridiculous ban on research is something that we can unquestionably lay at the door of the NRA, which I think takes a lot of wind out of any NRA defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 How will we stand up to the NRA? If only there were a segment of the population opposed to this kind of tyranny.It's the greatest failure of our democracy. Basically the minority opinion of a group of 4.5 million people has been forced on the entire nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 It's the greatest failure of our democracy. Basically the minority opinion of a group of 4.5 million people has been forced on the entire nation.I'd say the rising wealth inequity and the massive subsidy of the rich at the cost of the other 99.5% of Americans is a bigger failure. But hey, that gun thing sucks too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 It's the greatest failure of our democracy. Basically the minority opinion of a group of 4.5 million people has been forced on the entire nation.Such dramatics. It's not a failure of democracy because you can't get enough people top vote in line with your legislative preferences. That's a failure of advocacy - not democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Such dramatics. It's not a failure of democracy because you can't get enough people top vote in line with your legislative preferences. That's a failure of advocacy - not democracy. George III: that's what I said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Blaming this all on NRA propaganda is lazy and so general as to be meaningless. What safer solution compromise, specifically, are you talking about here?It's the NRA that threatens to score all gun votes and encourage it's small but very politically active membership to vote in the Repuiblican primaries against politicians that vote in favor of gun regulations the NRA opposes. It's not all their fault, but they have a lot of blood on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.