BREAKING NEWS: disgruntled employee just killed eleven (11) co-workers in Virginia Beach

Frack "underlying causes". We haven't the resources or time to completely revamp society. However, the fact does remain that you can't shoot a gun that isn't there.

 

OK so this is really about gun prohibition, not any sort of gun laws or reform.

Clearly we fundamentally disagree about that.

 

Why?

Are guns really that important to you?

And no, the above statement is meant to say that if gun owners won't accept ANY regulation then we might be approaching the point where the majority population will simply prohibit them entirely.

 

To me personally no, but they are a constitutionally protected right, and I'm not interested in reversing the Bill of Rights.

 

You wouldn't be reversing anything. You'd be overriding one amendment to the Constitution. If people are getting the idea that the first 10 amendments are sacrosanct then that's a bad thing. No part of the Constitution is really sacrosanct. It's an amendable document and it was written that way for several very good reasons, first and foremost being that things change over time.

 

I think the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. We should be adding to it, not subtracting.

 

And I too want to add to our rights. I want us to have the right to live our lives without being cut down by madmen equipped by gullible rubes pwned by death merchants

The Founding Fathers created a living document which functions to constantly increase our freedom, not a sacred text to be used as a straitjacket to erode it.

 

But you in fact just stated you want to erode it.

 

Revision which strengthens is not erosion. The first principle of all existence is that it changes, that which cannot change will cease to exist eventually.

 

How would repealing the second amendment serve to address the overwhelming number of unregistered, privately owned firearms in the united states? How would it do anything to assist in either finding them, or removing them from the equation?

 

Nadal Hassan who committed the Fort Hood mass shooting while Barack Obama was president of the united states is currently alive and in custody. His reasoning for his actions was that islam demanded such of him.

Such approaches only served to make the problem worse with regard to alcoholic beverages and narcotic substances. Why would the same failed approaches work differently and more successfully with regard to firearms?

 

Nor the resources, time, or legal ability, to actually go about removing firearms from the equation.

And yet firearms are indeed currently present and available to the public. Therefore they remain a part of the equation, and cannot be removed from the equation. For all intents and purposes, they remain a fixed constant that is as immutable as the day and night cycle.

So ultimately what good does all the talk of firearms not being present amount to? It states a concept of thought, but that is it. It does not bring the matter any closer to being reality than it was before the concept was voiced.

 

There is no right to live a life without fear. Just as there is no right to not be murdered. Even if such rights did exist in a theoretical sense, rights only apply against the government, not to the actions of private individuals.

 

Removing an individual right from the Bill of Rights is an erosion of rights. It's very Orwellian of you to call it a "revision." 1984 was meant as a warning, not a how to guide.

 

. The Constitution is a revisable document. It's not easy and for good reason, but it can be done and think circumstances warrant it be done now.

 

But you are talking about taking away rights that are in the Bill of Rights. No reasonable person would call that a revision.

 

If one of the rights was threatening all the rest no reasonable person would oppose its being revised.

 

The Right to Life is one of the 3 fundamentals in the Declaration of Independence, and if a government cannot deliver on that the DoI says we can and should overthrow it and institute another. I'm against overthrowing the government but I think its perfectly reasonable that we ask ti to deliver on the 3 fundamentals, especially since most other nations in the world do so quite readily

 

With that standard you could easily declare the 1st and 4th amendments as threatening. I see how this is going.

 

Over time.

 

He's trolling you.

 

I actually don't think so. I've argued with him before and I think his ignorance is sincere.

Or...he's a very good troll.

 

Nope. It's deliberate. You have to choose to be -that- wrong.

 

It is not the legal exercising of the second amendment that is threatening the lives of others, however. There is nothing in the second amendment about murder. Nor can a murderer go to court, and claim they were merely exercising their constitutional right to engage in the killing of others.

 

To ask the united state federal government to deliver on the supposed right to life is simply to ask that it not kill its own citizens.