[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Free speech via SMS, Twitter, Facebook, or international TV news broadcast, while potentially greater in scale than the readership of any publication in existence at the of writing the 1st amendment requires very little imagination to predict. Once you have the newspaper, its not a stretch to imagine one being circulated to millions instead of just thousands. Arguably it doesn't really change the nature or potential consequences of having free speech once you can reach thousands at a time.

If you don't restrict interpretation of the 2nd amendment to arms available at the time however, then you'd surely have to include all arms up to and including nuclear weapons. You can't tell me anyone thought nukes were possible that long ago.

But an easy amendment to your reductio ad absurdum would be "personal arms," as in the kind that a single person can reasonably carry. Those of today are no less a logical extension of those of the 18th century than our modern "assault tabloids" are of the speech of that era

One thing they did have the foresight to include, however, is a generic mechanism for updating the constitution for any unpredictable advancement of technology (or culture), and I maintain we are stupid not to have used it by now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

No, but there are limits to free speech just as there are limits to the 2nd amendment. Such limits have been affirmed as constitutional by the SC.

But not remotely to "the arms that were available at the time."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But an easy amendment to your reductio ad absurdum would be "personal arms," as in the kind that a single person can reasonably carry. Those of today are no less a logical extension of those of the 18th century than our modern "assault tabloids" are of the speech of that era

One thing they did have the foresight to include, however, is a generic mechanism for updating the constitution for any unpredictable advancement of technology (or culture), and I maintain we are stupid not to have used it by now.

A pity they didn't anticipate the influence that would be possible by powerful corporations and lobbyists, or the religious-like reverence of your constitution otherwise you might actually have a realistic shot of amending it this time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

A pity they didn't anticipate the influence that would be possible by powerful corporations and lobbyists, or the religious-like reverence of your constitution otherwise you might actually have a realistic shot of amending it this time.

That's loser talk. The reason a repeal amendment wouldn't pass is because the voters don't actually agree with you, if they did it would pass. It's happened plenty of times before now. Forcing a change against the will of the people is morally wrong. In my opinion, I don't know about yours.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

A pity they didn't anticipate the influence that would be possible by powerful corporations and lobbyists, or the religious-like reverence of your constitution otherwise you might actually have a realistic shot of amending it this time.

It's a pity that you choose to ignore salient facts, such as the fact that 80 million Americans own 300 million guns, yet the incidents, and rate, of violent crime continues to decline annually, while gun ownership continues to climb. Or the fact that the Justice Department/FBI removed homicide from the list of top 15 killers in 2011, for the first time since 1965. Or the fact that mass shootings have held at relatively stable numbers annually for almost forty years, and the attention they get today is primarily due to the easier and quicker access to media we have. Or the fact that, as more states have allowed their citizens to carry, the Wild West carnage that was predicted didn't happen. I could go on, but you wouldn't change your opinion. You should seriously think about changing your handle to Waragainstfacts.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's a pity that you choose to ignore salient facts, such as the fact that 80 million Americans own 300 million guns, yet the incidents, and rate, of violent crime continues to decline annually, while gun ownership continues to climb. Or the fact that the Justice Department/FBI removed homicide from the list of top 15 killers in 2011, for the first time since 1965. Or the fact that mass shootings have held at relatively stable numbers annually for almost forty years, and the attention they get today is primarily due to the easier and quicker access to media we have. Or the fact that, as more states have allowed their citizens to carry, the Wild West carnage that was predicted didn't happen. I could go on, but you wouldn't change your opinion. You should seriously think about changing your handle to Waragainstfacts.

Mass shootings have held stable at a level far higher than anywhere else.
Don't forget gun deaths due to accident or suicide.
Its not even about absolute gun deaths, its about whether or not they are easily and sensibly preventable. Not to mention other crimes.

Salient facts you have just ignored.

[Chongo]

just a bit of info on homicide rates. it doesn't break down by weapon, but it's safe to say that the weapon of choice is the machete.

Global homicide: murder rates around the world

Homicides per 100,000 pop
▾
Period
Colombia 61.1 Ave 2003-2005
El Salvador 56.4 Ave 2004-2006
Cote d'Ivoire 45.7 2004
South Africa 39.5 2004
Lesotho 37.3 2005
Angola 36 2004
Burundi 35.4 2004
Congo, the Dem Rep of the 35.2 2004
Sierra Leone 34 2004
Jamaica 33.7 2004
Venezuela 32.5 Ave 2003-2005
Brazil 30.8 Ave 2003-2005
Belize 30.1 2004
Russian Federation 29.7 2004
Central African Rep 29.1 2004
Sudan 28.6 2004
Rwanda 26.6 2004
Guatemala 26.3 Ave 2002-2004
Tanzania 26.1 2004
Equatorial Guinea 24 2004
Zambia 22.9 2004
Saint Kitts and Nevis 22.7 2004
Bahamas 22.5 2004
Botswana 21.5 2004
Saint Lucia 21.3 2004
Philippines 21 2004
Mozambique 20.2 2004
Niger 20.2 2004
Ethiopia 19.3 2004
Guyana 19.2 Ave 2003-2005
Chad 19 2004
Korea, north 18.9 2004
Puerto Rico 18.9 Ave 2003-2005
Congo 18.8 2004
Cambodia 18.5 2004
Burkina Faso 18.1 2004
Malawi 18 2004
Mali 18 2004
Paraguay 17.8 Ave 2004-2006
Nigeria 17.7 2004
Nicaragua 17.4 Ave 2003-2005
Guinea 17.3 2004
Gabon 17.1 2004
Dominican Rep 16.8 2004
Ecuador 16.8 Ave 2003-2005
Liberia 16.8 2004
Guinea-Bissau 16.3 2004
Cameroon 16.1 2004
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 16 2004
Eritrea 15.9 2004
Burma 15.7 2004
Mauritania 15.2 2004
Papua New Guinea 15.2 2004
Barbados 15.1 2004
Senegal 14.2 2004
Honduras 13.8 2004
Togo 13.7 2004
Trinidad and Tobago 13.7 2004
Gambia 13.5 2004
Panama 13.4 Ave 2002-2004
Mongolia 13.1 2004
Namibia 12.8 2004
Benin 12.7 2004
Swaziland 12.7 2004
Kazakhstan 11.9 2005
Suriname 11.8 Ave 2003-2005
East Timor 11.7 2004
Madagascar 11.7 2004
Ghana 11.6 2004
Mexico 10.9 Ave 2004-2006
Cape Verde 10.7 2004
Dominica 10.3 2004
Nauru 9.9 2004
Comoros 9.3 2004
Lithuania 9.1 2004
Indonesia 8.9 2004
Latvia 8.6 2004
Zimbabwe 8.4 2004
Anguilla 8.3 2004
Belarus 8.3 2004
Thailand 8.2 2005
Kyrgyzstan 8.1 2004
Ukraine 8 2004
Turkmenistan 7.8 2004
Antigua and Barbuda 7.7 2004
Costa Rica 7.3 Ave 2004-2006
Uganda 7.3 2004
Moldova 7.2 2004
Sri Lanka 7.2 2004
Turkey 6.9 2004
Estonia 6.7 2004
Iraq 6.7 2004
Kenya 6.7 2005
Albania 6.6 2004
Kiribati 6.5 2004
Georgia 6.2 2004
Cuba 6 Ave 2004-2006
USA 5.9 Ave 2003-2005
Chile 5.5 Ave 2003-2005
India 5.5 2004
Lao People's Democratic Rep 5.4 2004
Sao Tome and Principe 5.4 2004
Argentina 5.3 Ave 2004-2006
Bolivia 5.3 2005
Haiti 5.3 2004
Grenada 4.9 2004
Uruguay 4.7 Ave 2003-2005
Bhutan 4.3 2004
Palestinian Terr 4 2005
Viet Nam 3.8 2004
Montenegro 3.6 2005
Pakistan 3.6 2004
Djibouti 3.5 2004
Seychelles 3.5 2004
Uzbekistan 3.5 2004
Afghanistan 3.4 2004
Somalia 3.3 2004
Saudi Arabia 3.2 2004
Bulgaria 3.1 2004
Monaco 3.1 2004
Peru 3 Ave 2002-2004
Iran 2.9 2004
Libya 2.9 2004
Liechtenstein 2.9 2004
Switzerland 2.9 2004
Finland 2.8 2004
Israel 2.6 2004
Scotland 2.6 2004
Armenia 2.5 2004
Mauritius 2.5 2004
Yemen 2.5 2004
Azerbaijan 2.4 2004
Lebanon 2.4 2005
Macedonia 2.4 2004
Northern Ireland 2.4 2004
Romania 2.4 2004
Tajikistan 2.4 2004
Bangladesh 2.3 2005
Slovakia 2.3 2004
China 2.2 2004
Czech Rep 2.2 2004
Korea, south 2.2 2004
Belgium 2.1 2004
Hungary 2.1 2004
Maldives 2.1 2004
Nepal 2.1 2005
Oman 2.1 2004
Croatia 2 2004
Malaysia 2 2005
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.8 2005
Cyprus 1.8 2004
Marshall Islands 1.8 2004
Malta 1.7 2004
Poland 1.7 2004
Tunisia 1.7 2004
England & Wales 1.6 2004
France 1.6 2004
Canada 1.5 Ave 2002-2004
New Zealand 1.5 2005
Slovenia 1.5 2004
Solomon Islands 1.5 2004
Algeria 1.4 2004
Andorra 1.4 2004
Brunei Darussalam 1.4 2004
Kuwait 1.4 2004
Netherlands 1.4 2004
Portugal 1.4 2004
Serbia 1.4 2005
Australia 1.3 2004
Italy 1.2 2004
Jordan 1.2 2005
Spain 1.2 2004
Sweden 1.2 2004
Syria 1.2 2005
Bermuda 1.1 2004
Denmark 1.1 2004
Ireland 1.1 2004
Samoa 1.1 2004
Bahrain 1 2004
Germany 1 2004
Greece 1 2004
Iceland 1 2004
Tonga 1 2004
Vanuatu 1 2004
Micronesia 0.9 2004
Palau 0.9 2004
Norway 0.8 2004
Qatar 0.8 2004
Austria 0.7 2004
Egypt 0.7 2005
Fiji 0.7 2004
United Arab Emirates 0.7 2004
Hong Kong (Spec Admin Reg China) 0.6 2004
Japan 0.5 2005
Morocco 0.5 2004
Singapore 0.5 2004
Luxembourg 0.4 2004

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sure, the highest levels. But what about the lowest levels (seriously). Has any individual person from America ever pressured you to support the war on drugs, either iRL or online?

Online Yes, In person yes, when some equipment was being installed with a US contractor we got into a debate about that subject at the smoking tent and they did not approve at how liberal we where on pot. But I know Americans in person that are totally against the drug laws as well. The highest levels are what counts because that is what affects national drug policy most.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Do you think any of that adds up to it earning a spot in the bill of rights (still, in modern times)? Just curious. As one of the few (only?) non-American* gun rights supporters, your perspective is very interesting to me. And there's a wide range of possibilities for gun rights to still exist, in a more limited form, far short of the elevated status on which we have them.

Me, I don't think it should still be in there. If there was a vote to amend it (with a sound replacement policy), I would vote for the change. But it's not the "gun" in "gun rights" that's more important, IMO. Undermining the whole "bill of rights" concept is a step in the wrong direction, and no mass killer is going to change that. Totalitarianism has killed more children than crazy ever will.

* edit: is "non-American" an ok term to refer to Canadians? Is there an alternative that means what I think it means?

I dont think it belongs in the bill of rights. Because not every single person has that right. A killer can be prohibited from owning a gun, a mentally insane person can too. A killer and a mentally insane persons protection of speech is still protected regardless of the crime. The right to self protection would be a better amendment with out specifics of tools. IE a person has the right to defend themselves against any and all whatever with any and all tools as long as it was just and proportional. Or something along those lines. That would include all guns as well. Driving is far most important for most people to even maintain a normal life and that isnt considered a right. BUT!!!! I do understand the important of protection of rights and because its a right I do understand why its important. Not so much the gun itself but what it means to take away a right all on its own and what that symbolizes.

PS Canadians and Mexicans don't associate with the term Americans. That term is for the people of the United States only. North Americans would be the term if you wanted to use Americans outside of people of the USofA

[BadKosh]

The rise in gun sales is an anti-endorsement of the current administration. You can draw your own conclusions. Bottom line - they can't be trusted to do what is in our best interests.

[Athens]

The gun sales is a sign of unfounded fear and pure ignorance. Obama has hardly attacked guns and gun rights. He came out with some pretty sensible solutions. Compared to what G Bush did after the 1989 school shooting in Cali followed by Bill Clinton, Obama has done practically nothing. Fear created out of false propaganda and a very loud and incorrect NRA is driving these sales. Guns are not going to be banned by the federal government. I would be more worried about state governments which are imposing the more damning laws on gun owners.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The rise in gun sales is an anti-endorsement of the current administration. You can draw your own conclusions. Bottom line - they can't be trusted to do what is in our best interests.

Same thing happened 4 years ago.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The rise in gun sales is an anti-endorsement of the current administration. You can draw your own conclusions. Bottom line - they can't be trusted to do what is in our best interests.

Even if this were the overwhelming sentiment, running out and gunning up is exactly the wrong response for winning future elections, as this response is completely irrational. It is never rational, no matter who wins the election.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Even if this were the overwhelming sentiment, running out and gunning up is exactly the wrong response for winning future elections, as this response is completely irrational. It is never rational, no matter who wins the election.

So what you're saying is, Guns don't win elections, people win elections?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So what you're saying is, Guns don't win elections, people win elections?

I guess.

I'm not saying that people don't care about guns, there is obviously a great deal of passion behind them, but what I'm saying is that guns being some sort of remedy against a so-called tyrannical government is fringy, loony type stuff. If you don't like what your government is doing, the rational and modern response is to work to undo this legislation, not to gun up and wait for some government agent to enforce said legislation so that you can shoot them dead. After all, this is 2013.

[besson3c]

Let us not forget that the percentage of people that participate in our democracy is quite low. Imagine what impact would exist if even 50% participated in it, and not just showed up on election day to vote, but participated in it on a regular basis?

This impact will be infinitely larger than some crazed unhinged dude killing somebody in the government and going to jail for it. Sure it will draw a lot of attention, but it probably won't have very much power behind it to affect legislation that isn't related to dealing with unhinged individuals.

It's ironic that the prescription to a government that wants to implement more gun control is to rile up a bunch of people into becoming unhinged - the very sorts of people that inspire greater gun control in the first place.

[The Final Dakar]

It was a joke.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It was a joke.

I often don't get jokes that don't have planting bears and punchlines that would appeal to infants.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I often don't get jokes that don't have planting bears and punchlines that would appeal to infants poop.

Let's be honest here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Let's be honest here.

That's what I wrote, but I have a censor, remember?

I do like other kinds of humor, but it's basically silly or bust. I like Parks and Recreation, the Office, and Will Ferrell, for example.

Maybe my low range of humor is sort of like those friends of yours that can only be happy eating at McDonalds and Applebees? I mean, your hypothetical friends, you probably don't have any real friends.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The government is overspending by >$1T, and no amount of taxation can fix that. Next question?

The current debt problem has little to nothing to do with the state of mental health care and education funding, they've been under constant attack since the 1960s. Subsidizing multi-million and -bilion dollar corporation and individuals does not solve overspending, either. Somehow elected Republicans have convinced 48% of America that they need to give rich people more money.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Somehow elected Republicans have convinced 48% of America that they need to give rich people more money.

They'll create jobs!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The current debt problem has little to nothing to do with the state of mental health care and education funding, they've been under constant attack since the 1960s. Subsidizing multi-million and -bilion dollar corporation and individuals does not solve overspending, either. Somehow elected Republicans have convinced 48% of America that they need to give rich people more money.

Since when is taking less, giving more? Otherwise, tax favors and subsidizing multi-million and billion $ corporations is what governments do, that's what we keep trying to tell you. They're like peanut butter and jelly. The only way to begin chipping away at this relationship is to ask your government to do less. What Republicans have convinced me of is that few investments in your life will be less fruitful and more squandered in waste than your tax dollar. I have no problem with a progressive tax code, but I do have standards on its stewardship. I hope that's okay.