One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

Um sure, that was my point.

People who deitize the founding fathers don't think any of their words should be changed.

Good luck trying to talk anyone into supporting an amendment that clarifies anything in the 1st amendment.

 

I don't think we should care what the founded intended in terms of today's policy. They gave us a good start, but their times were very different. They knew it would be like this, to their credit, and they gave a mechanism for changes to be made. So it still comes down to what good policy is and what the evidence says. And as before, I wouldn't say I'm decided on what that is, with this issue at least, only that it's the right guiding principle.

 

All you need is a compelling argument.
Apparently, you don't.

 

No, that's not all anyone needs.

The 7 post back and forth we just had here over a throw away drive by comment I made is proof of that.

People don't care about anything but being angry.

 

What did the founding fathers think about gun laws?

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved
1. Guns at that time were registered.

2. Carrying guns in populated areas was illegal

3. No "stand your ground" laws. People had the duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense

4. Storing loaded guns at homes was illegal

5. Population was disarmed during the revolution, and people were required to swear loyalty to the government in order to have the right restored. Those did refused, would remain disarmed, and those who did, were
https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

 

It is.
When you have a compelling argument, you get the support you need to amend the constitution.
So.... get out there and present that argument. Get people to believe it. Sell it.
Amending the constitution is -supposed- to be hard - so if you want it done, then you need to be willing to do the work.

 

This is false.
Militiamen were registered. Not their guns. Guns didn't have serial numbers back then.
And you didn't need to register as a militiaman to own a gun.

Sometimes. Mostly not.

This is false.

This is false.

This is false.

 

what in the Bill of Rights needs to be clarified?

do we need these things if so why are you so terrible at making the case for them?

If we need a constitutional amendment we'll pass it in fact is we don't need to. And until you get enough people agreeing with you that you need to you're not ever going to get to.

We can make amendments to the Constitution amending the Bill of Rights you do need a supermajority which should be easy if you believe that you're correct and you can convince other people of it.

 

the solution to problems should never be authoritarianism.

If you can't change the Constitution within the parameters of the Constitution then the change you want isn't appropriate

So have fun convincing people that we need to do that. We could make gun control tomorrow if we had enough people in supporting the amendment people don't support it.

Imagine that people support freedom over authoritarianism amazing it's almost like it's obvious

 

We need campaign finance reform IMO. The 1st amendment stands in the way.

We need some type of media/social media regulation. The 1st amendment stands in the way.

I'm not pretending to have language to propose for an amendment, but that doesn't even matter, because we aren't at the point of even being able to discuss the idea of clarifying the 1st amendment. Half of us thinks the other half is out to take away their freedom as it is.

 

And you prove the point of the last sentence of my previous post by assuming i'm promoting authoritarianism.

 

why do we need this?

you don't have to be able to propose an amendment in order to argue for your point.

So the question becomes do you really want this or are you told you want it?

 

What you're arguing for is limitations on liberties. I'm willing to entertain it but you have to have a very good reason.

 

I'm not going to debate with you over whether or not we need campaign finance reform or media reform. There are already more than enough people who agree about the existnece of the problems, so i don't need you to agree to that.

The last part where you ask me if it's what i really want, or am I told to want it, is everything that is wrong with trying to have a discussion online. You are antagonistic because you are mad about something that it in your head. I can't help you with that.

 

That's why you can't get anywhere. You can't even bother to explain why we need to change the Constitution so you should be dismissed.

yes you do if you want people to support amendments to the Constitution you need is in many people to agree with you as possible.

I'm starting to see why you fail at this. You don't even know the first thing about it.

agreed. You can't argue for what you want you cry about things like this. You should just give up now you're not going to make it.

you can't even argue for your case. I give you the slightest resistance and you're falling to pieces.

This right here is why you can't get anything. I don't care that you play victim I don't care that you want to pretend you can psychoanalyze somebody. I'm not going to be ashamed out of my position.


This always seems to be the case with people who want to change the Constitution. They make a claim and then when you confront them on it they cry and whine and moan about how mean you are.

Good. That means all I have to do to keep my freedom is be a bit mean. Worth it.

 

It's a good starting point but you don't even have that.

If everybody that disagrees with you only cares about being angry first that isn't true and thus is an excuse for failed argument. Funny blame your failures in others being angry. Learn, adapt, overcome.

 

Who is at fault for your inability to present a compelling argument for amending the 1st Amendment?

 

That's because they saw people like you coming.

You could always move to a country that fits your socialist ideology.

Oh, and there is no such thing as meaningful gun control.

 

Have we met?

 

Only by the ideas that we type.

 

You don't know any people like me.

 

Yes I'm sure you're very special.

 

state law vs federal. at the federal level the no gun control. at the state level it was a different view but guess what, that destroys the pathetic argument of say Justice Stevens who claimed that he couldn't believe the founders would create a society where there was no gun control. Stevens was either ignorant or more likely dishonest since the state governments had gun control

 

meaningful gun control in your mind being crap that harasses lawful owners while allowing democrats to pretend they are doing something about violent crime, while actually helping a major leftwing special interest group-violent felons and those who enable them?

 

4 is bullshit-there is no evidence of that at a national or state level, You have quoted Saul Cornell who is one of the most discredited whores of the gun banning movement. He found ONE CASE-Boston that required guns to be unloaded
and those were all state laws. He seems unable to honestly state that the existence of STATE laws is a strong argument why there were not FEDERAL laws-it would have been redundant. His bullshit argument is since the founders didn't do anything about state laws, they must have been OK with the same nonsense existing at a federal level.