General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSolution to Gun Control? Reject 2nd Amendment. It is that simple.
...So what if it is part of the so called, "Bill of Rights"? That one is outdated, just like slavery was outdated. So what
if it will be difficult to reject and do away with it? We did away with slavery. We can do away with an outdated, and
stupid amendment. No proof is necessary. Plenty of proof. Just read the news. Yes, some states have strong gun
control, and others don't. Forget that crap!!
...Reject and amend the constitution to do away with "Amendment 2". We did it with woman's right to vote, which was
illegal in many states, so we can do away with one amendment for good. We did it with slavery, so it can be done.......
So what isome states are against it.,..Just do it.
And it is obvious that this one results in many useless deaths......hundreds a year. Just do it, the proof is there...SO JUST DO IT! So what if there is going to be an argument against doing it....The Proof is There...Just Do It.
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)to pass an amendment now? "just do it". You provide no means of doing it...just rhetoric really.
Sympthsical
(9,072 posts)I think people forget, Congress at the time had a ton of Southern congressmen absent as the Civil War was still ongoing. Even then, it barely passed. When it came to the states, the Southern ones were all more or less forced to go along with it as they were occupied and controlled by the Union.
While we like to think, "Yay, we abolished slavery. Hooray for us!" it was very much something done at the barrel of a gun. Which I am quite fine with.
But the idea the 2nd Amendment will be repealed any time in the near future is fantasy. You just need 13 rural states to stop it, and they will. That's assuming you can get 2/3 of both houses of Congress.
The only way the situation gets realistically remedied is with a Supreme Court that decides to interpret the 2nd more narrowly. So, we're some decades out from all that.
Firestorm49
(4,032 posts)You cant get the two parties to agree on what day of the week it is, much less change an amendment. Its a long arduous procedure with rancor baked in.
I agree with you in theory. Reality is a different thing.
dutch777
(3,013 posts)part of Amendment 2 that somehow gets ignored at every level.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)you need 2/3rds of the Senate to pass and 3/4ths of the States to ratify, which means that 13 states can deep six any Amendment.
dutch777
(3,013 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)In today's political environment, it would be virtually impossible to amend the Constitution.
patphil
(6,169 posts)I don't see gun control and regulation as being contrary to the 2nd Amendment. In my opinion, setting rules for the implementation of that right is consistent with the intent of the Amendment.
Just like there are limits to free speech...what you can and can't say.
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)....
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)It used to be that powerful weapons like MSSAs were kept in Armories.
No one NEEDS an MSSA; they WANT them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the one saying it gives individual rights can be overruled to. If people would just get out and vote.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)Out of 11,770 proposed amendments, only 27 have been passed and ratified. The Equal Rights Amendment, which should have been a no-brainer, was first proposed almost 100 years ago and still hasn't been ratified. Only one amendment, the 18th, which made the sale of alcohol illegal in 1920, was ever repealed by a later one, the 21st, in 1933. And since the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, you can be damn sure it isn't going anywhere.
Stuart G
(38,419 posts).......................................45,222.........................................................................
Gun-related deaths from preventable, intentional, and undetermined causes totaled 45,222 in 2020, an increase of 13.9% from 39,707 deaths in 2019. Suicides account for 54% of deaths related to firearms, while 43% were homicides, and about 1% were preventable/accidental.
So what if it difficult? ...........Let's say we save 1/2 of those deaths...IS IT WORTH IT?
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)2 suicides, both impulsive with no notes left, no warnings.
I know someone shot in the head randomly while driving. Bullet stayed in his head for decades.
My brother had a shotgun stuck in his chest at the local Kwik Mart when he was 19.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)300 million firearms in this country?
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)it's a slippery slope argument. "gun grabbers" are people without power wishing for something they know will never happen.
"it's WAY too late for gun control in America."
-Steve Earle, Live at the BBC
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)you hit the nail right on the head.
Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)Don't you think that would leave the door wide open, in terms of precedent, for the possible repeal of the rest of the Bill of Rights? Some GOPers might like to ditch the 5th Amendment, although some of them might need it. Some might want to do away with the 4th, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. How about we get rid of the right to a jury trial and the right to confront witnesses? How about if we don't prohibit cruel and unusual punishment any more? And then there's the First Amendment: There are people who would like to establish a religion - their own - and would like to prohibit others from practicing theirs, but can't because of the First Amendment. There are people who don't like the freedom of assembly or the freedom to petition for the redress of grievances. And there are people who really, really hate a free press.
My point is, when you start messing with the Bill of Rights you open a can of worms you might not want to open. The problem with the 2nd Amendment lies in its current interpretation, which almost certainly was not what was intended when it was written.
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)Doing so, will save thousands of lives a year.. Not just a few, but thousands. Is that worth it?
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)good luck with that.
Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)It's not going to happen, but everybody needs a windmill to tilt at.
manicdem
(388 posts)As much as I think most suicides are foolish and reckless, I think it's a persons right to end their life and not something I should interfere with. Their body their choice. I have the same feelings towards abortion. I think it's wrong to do but I believe it's a women's right to choose and it's their decision only.
treestar
(82,383 posts)before the 19th Amendment, or the 18-year-old vote? The ERA could still pass one day. Why is it never going to happen just because you won't see it happen in your lifetime? Get it started for others to finish.
Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)My point is that its not a simple, easy solution. And even if it were possible, it wouldnt change anything or fix the problem because almost all of the states have a version of the 2nd amendment in their own constitutions.
City67
(79 posts)How about we have a dry run, you know, take guns away from criminals first?
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)that. This kid purchased his weapon at an FFL dealer. The magazine was illegal. I'm sure they'll figure out where he got that. Also he threatened to shoot up a school as a teenager and yet he passed a background check. What the hell were this kid's parents thinking when he started collecting body armor, ammunition and an assault rifle after that? Maybe they are gun nutters themselves?
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)good luck with that.
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)Over time the deaths will fall. Let states determine the gun laws...So, over time, states with strong gun laws
.............will prove to the others...how many lives were saved....
.............just like ...state seat belt laws.... have proved that lives are saved....Remember this:
Individual states regulate seat belt laws...Got that?
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)When we legalized cannabis in blue states, we give the finger to federal drug laws. The red states can keep any guns they want legal in their states by the same logic. Red states wont ever give up their guns no matter who is in charge or what the ruling is; as blue states will act over the fall of Roe with abortion.
And as always, Ill point out the hypocrisy of calling semi-auto guns weapons of war that need banning, but allowing the cops one protests for murdering people to keep access to those guns which we say are only good for murdering people. Wanting a group of people we see as constantly abusing peoples rights to be the only one with modern guns seems illogical; especially if we say those exact guns should be banned for making it easy to murder people.
Might as well be screaming to the top of ones lungs:
I dont trust you cops not to abuse and murder us citizens, so I will protest you for your abuse while demanding laws that ensure you are better armed than us!
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)AZProgressive
(29,322 posts)Means that a cop is probably is justified in carrying them but I would like to see less armed cops. I think UK cops can handle crime including knife crime without guns.
The states which also includes red states changed their local state laws not federal ones. When it comes to federal crimes it depends on how hard they want to enforce them and they certainly did in California under the Bush administration.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)
it either has multiple uses or it doesnt. If when gun safety says these are only for mass murder or only belong on the battlefield, but allow the cops to keep them, then either:
A - They do believe that and think the cops are at war on a battlefield with civilians.
B - Are lying and feel these weapons have other uses beyond murder
C - Arent saying what they mean, which is confusing. If what one really means when they say these rifles only belong in war is only the law should have these weapons, even if the law sometimes kills people unjustifiably, then just say that. Saying it the other way makes it sound like one is lying about their goals.
Or perhaps D - They just want to live in a police state where the civilians have no chance to rebel against abuse by ensuring only the state has the best guns. An offshoot of A.
manicdem
(388 posts)The problem with taking the right away and leaving it to the states is the same would apply to all states whether its freedom of speech, abortion rights, equality, etc. SCOTUS ruled wrong on abortion, but we should not support the precedent for States to choose what rights we have.
moondust
(19,972 posts)In the last two decades of the 20th century, following several high-profile killing sprees, the federal government coordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments. Gun laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement. In two federally funded gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders and State Governments' gun amnesties before and after the Port Arthur Massacre, more than a million firearms were collected and destroyed, possibly a third of the national stock.
~
A person must have a firearm licence to possess or use a firearm. Licence holders must demonstrate a "genuine reason" (which does not include self-defence) for holding a firearm licence[2] and must not be a "prohibited person". All firearms must be registered by serial number to the owner, who must also hold a firearms licence.
~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia
Again, "Licence holders must demonstrate a 'genuine reason' (which does not include self-defence) for holding a firearm licence[2] and must not be a 'prohibited person'."
OPINION: Australians have ended mass killings, so why cant Americans?
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)and it would never pass any court in the land.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)To self-defense a restricted right?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Which the Founding Fathers saw the need for, but let us have a way to amend it. But we have enough voters who won't go for that right now, anyway. So we can't do the sensible thing. Frustrating.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)Let us know what you are doing to get that started
former9thward
(31,981 posts)About 500,000 dead or the equivalent of 5 million dead with today's population. Is that what you think is needed to "just do it"?
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)Stuart G
(38,419 posts)...Over time, states with strong laws, will prove to others what needs to be proved....Just like seatbelt laws.
Ask Again..........IS IT WORTH SAVING 20,000 LIVES A YEAR TO DO AWAY WITH AN AMENDMENT?
........................if it doesn't work, reverse it, just like anti-drinking amendment was reversed....
..........................BUT IT WILL WORK, AND THE PROOF WILL BE THERE......
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)but in reality, it isn't, to pass or repeal an Amendment, you first have to convince a majority of states to open a Constitutional Convention, which opens the door to all the Amendments, then you have to convince 2/3rds of the Senate to approve of the change, then you have to convince 3/4ths of the States to ratify the change.
Think you've got the votes?
Fla_Democrat
(2,547 posts)If it reverts to a states issue, then the BATF goes bye-bye. Well, maybe they can stay around as BAT, just for kicks.
No more NFA (and the paper work, long waits, tax stamps), no more FOPA, sure, some people's 'investments' will lose value, but I really don't think they will mind.
No more FFL system, no tracking down a license holder to ship a firearm back to the manufacturer for warranty work, or for sending it off to a gunsmith/shop for custom work.
No stings where the Feds send a slacker to get someone to print them a FGC-9.
You've convinced me.
SYFROYH
(34,169 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)this would be giving the repukes a gift wrapped issue to hammer us on.
Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)A state could pass its own version of the 2nd Amendment that would confer an unrestricted right to bear arms on individuals without that slippery language about a well-regulated militia. You think a state like Texas wouldn't do that in a heartbeat if by some miracle the 2nd amendment were repealed? All the red states and maybe even some of the blue ones would replace the repealed federal amendment with their own, even less restrictive versions, and there's not a damn thing the federal government could do about it.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)Stuart G
(38,419 posts)come out. Just repeal the 2nd Amendment...over time.........PROOF WILL PREVAIL
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)melm00se
(4,990 posts)have the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions.
NY, CA, IA, MN, MD and NJ are the only states that do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
The states that do have a wide range of language in their constitution.
Some states are clear, concise and expansive:
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Some mirror the federal language
"A well regulated militia being..."
Some states specifically address concealed carry:
"The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.
If you want to educate yourself on the actual wording by each state, you can go here.
Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)in some respect, and changing those amendments to make them more or less restrictive is much easier than changing or repealing the federal amendment; and those that dont have one could enact one if the federal one were to go away. So the solution clearly isnt simple or easy.
melm00se
(4,990 posts)There are states with rural populations where their livelihood requires that the have the ability to deal with apex predators, pests and "varmints" which are best handled with firearms than a state with an urban population.
I went to college with a guy who lives in Wyoming and owns a ranch. When he is out working his land, he is never more than arm's length from his rifle. He learned that lesson as a pre-teen from his father who shot and killed a wolf that was moving in to eat him.
hack89
(39,171 posts)AWBs, registration, magazine limits, storage requirements are all perfectly constitutional. According to the SC, the only right the 2A protects is the individual right to own a handgun in your home. That is it. Scalia even wrote in the Heller opinion that the 2A allows strict gun control.
Stop blaming the 2A - the reason gun control is a smoking wreck is cultural and political, not legal.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)Stuart G
(38,419 posts)Plain and simple..ONCE OUT OF CONSTITUTION, .....deaths will go down.......give it a try.......
if it doesn't work.....repeal it........BUT IT WILL WORK, GIVE IT A TRY!!
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)it won't happen.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You are not making much sense here.
Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)If the 2nd Amendment just disappeared, states would be free to legislate whatever gun control they wanted, or none at all. They could amend their own constitutions conferring the right to bear whatever arms you want and do whatever you wanted with them. They could pass laws making it legal to own and carry a gun without any kind of license or restriction, and some have done just that. Other states could make all gun ownership completely illegal. So we'd have a patchwork of laws, and inevitably some residents of no-gun states would be importing guns from unrestricted-gun states - which also happens now. Nothing would appreciably change; guns would still be widely available, legally or not. There are already more guns in circulation than there are people to own them, and they aren't going away either. I really don't see how repealing the 2nd amendment would make a damn bit of difference, so I'd like to see an explanation for how that's supposed to work.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)View profile
If the 2nd Amendment just disappeared, states would be free to legislate whatever gun control they wanted, or none at all. They could amend their own constitutions conferring the right to bear whatever arms you want and do whatever you wanted with them. They could pass laws making it legal to own and carry a gun without any kind of license or restriction, and some have done just that. Other states could make all gun ownership completely illegal. So we'd have a patchwork of laws, and inevitably some residents of no-gun states would be importing guns from unrestricted-gun states - which also happens now. Nothing would appreciably change; guns would still be widely available, legally or not. There are already more guns in circulation than there are people to own them, and they aren't going away either. I really don't see how repealing the 2nd amendment would make a damn bit of difference, so I'd like to see an explanation for how that's supposed to work.
I too would like to see an explanation, along with an explanation on how OP plans to get this through the Senate and get 3/4ths of the states on board.
gladium et scutum
(806 posts)all we have to do is outlaw alcohol and those lives would be saved. But it will work, give it a try.
RaDaR63
(89 posts)all we have to do is outlaw illegal drugs.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)RaDaR63
(89 posts)in the last year and a half. None of them were getting it legally. I haven't forgotten, and won't forget.
Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)You can't buy a bazooka, for example, and requiring certain procedures in order to buy a gun doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. Maybe some gun purchases should be more difficult and restricted than they are, but I agree that the underlying problem is mainly cultural: in the US, unlike many other countries in which citizens can legally own guns, there is a mindset among some according to which you aren't a real man or a real patriot unless you own multiple military-style guns and can bring them with you openly wherever you go, and that you can and should defend yourself and your household against an intrusive, oppressive government and/or Antifa, whichever comes after you first. In other gun-owning countries a gun is a tool used mainly for hunting and there's no aura of power or heroism attached to it. In those countries mass shootings are extremely rare; gun victims tend to be deer, bears, game birds and rabbits. You might not approve of hunting, either, but if you walk into a grocery store in Finland, one of the top-10 gun-owning countries, the likelihood of being shot by a white supremacist incel, or anybody else, is vanishingly small.
48656c6c6f20
(7,638 posts)1. It will never happen because we can't do the hard things
There it is.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)That's it in a nutshell.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)It would be political suicide to try.
Talk about driving republican turnout. There's little they would enjoy more than literally putting 2A on the ballot.
Of course, it would never get that far since Congress would never bring it up (let alone get 2/3 support in both houses)
RaDaR63
(89 posts)on an internet message board, over and over, just might do the trick.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)Well played, well played.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)An assault weapons ban might be a good idea though.
budkin
(6,699 posts)No chance in hell.
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)parents who love guns, should teach their children that the dangers of guns outweigh the advantages...even if
...........they love their guns
BannonsLiver
(16,369 posts)Why didnt someone think of that before.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)requiring a well-regulated militia?
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON WE DO NOT NEED THE 2ND AMENDMENT..
NO POLICE FORCE EXISTED IN THE 1790s when the 1st 10 Amendments were added.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)where the commander-in-chief is the governor. It is part of California's Active Militia.
SYFROYH
(34,169 posts)Ocelot II
(115,674 posts)as early as 1626. Long before the revolution, many municipalities hired constables and marshals who were empowered to serve warrants and make arrests. Philadelphia established a police department in 1751, and the US Marshals service was established in 1789. A militia is something different altogether - generally speaking, it is an organized group of civilians who are enlisted to supplement an existing permanent military force, and is under the command of the permanent military organization. It does not have domestic law enforcement powers but is intended to assist in the defense of the country.
panader0
(25,816 posts)What about the legal gun dealers and their businesses? Will the government buy them out?
I'm afraid that this is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It's out there already.
Certain laws would help, i.e., universal registration, bump stocks, 100 ammo magazines, etc.
It's gonna take a long, long time to right this wrong.
manicdem
(388 posts)If the democratic party's focus was on repealing the 2nd amendment, that would end the party. Repubs would control everything with a supermajority in 2024.
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)And it will over time. Not quickly, but gradually. It would not end the Democratic Party as you say. 70% of Americans
are for further control of guns. The founders of the Constitution had no idea what that amendment would create. Whatever
the way possible, reduce the availability of guns. Too many guns kill too many people.
manicdem
(388 posts)The problem is that there are a lot of democrats and independents who own guns. Not as large a percentage as Repubs, but still a very significant percentage.
Guns are a special case different from all others. Gun people will reject someone that is against guns even if they agree with all other issues. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban is an example where it cost the party the election when a lot of voters crossed party lines or didn't vote because of it. That is why the democrat party is very very careful when it comes to guns now.
Joenobody
(90 posts)All Democrats need to buy guns, learn to use them, and carry them all the time.
It's pretty hard to understand how we can have a growing number of people who seem clearly intent on political violence, directed at Democrats and Democratic leaning groups and still be talking about getting rid of guns. They want us dead and the answer around here is "disarm ourselves."
Sorry, I'm keep my guns close and loaded.
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)far more gun accidents.
........................and............. Who is they?
Skittles
(153,150 posts)GUN HUMPING COWARDS
no fucking way will I be like them, UGH
Skittles
(153,150 posts)EVERYONE become a gun humping, paranoid coward
NO FUCKING THANKS
hunter
(38,310 posts)The second amendment is one of those things, especially the current interpretation of it.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)if it was so simple, then why hasn't it been done already?
Someone seems to be a little bit detached from reality on this issue.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)LuckyCharms
(17,425 posts)Pragmatically however, this notion is pretty much impossible for many reasons.
Shorter term partial solutions that can actually be accomplished:
1) Stronger enforcement of any possible gun control regulations under current laws
2) The push for new laws that limit the ease of purchasing a weapon (background checks, required licensing of all newly purchased firearms, mandatory periodic re-education on the proper use of firearms)
3) Gun buyback programs
Longer term solutions:
1) Massive increase in funding for mental health services
2) Massive increase in funding for education in general
3) Increase in social safety nets
4) A more comprehensive definition of the term "hate speech"
5) An attempt, at least, to mitigate income inequality as much as possible
6) A coordinated, well-planned, and well funded pushback against speech which is detrimental to public safety in general. This includes the "shaming" of this type of speech. This includes making people who support this type of rhetoric pariahs of sorts. It was done successfully to cigarettes smokers. It can be done successfully with this type of speech...with enough funding and enough motivation to create a concerted effort.
7) The creation of a trained, unarmed, massive and coordinated group of citizens. What I envision here is sort of a federally supervised program that would in essence be some sort of national civil service program in which people would be given the opportunity to join and serve in for 2 to 4 years at a time. They would not be a law enforcement entity, nor a military entity, and they would not be armed, but they would be in uniform. There would be strict requirements to gain access as a member of this civil organization, and there would be real and substantial rewards for participation in this program. It would be as well respected as the military is, only with completely different objectives than those of the military.
The goals of this organization would be as follows:
A large public presence
Non-violent conflict resolution
A source of information for social services that are available
A liaison between law enforcement and the general public
The promotion and execution of positive community activities
"Observers" trained to spot situations that may escalate into bigger problems
Joy spreaders
Formally trained to recognize potential serious psychological problems
"Helpers" (as Fred Rogers would say)
Formally trained in gentle persuasion techniques
Education of anyone they encounter in public on the difference between "facts" and "opinion"
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)Now you're starting to screw with the 1A and I won't tolerate that, and neither would any court in the land, and you know as well as I do that the repukes would love to have such a law on the books to define what "hate speech" is when they get back in power.
And then there's this:
Who funds this? The Govt.? Private orgs? Donations?
And there there's this:
What exactly do you mean by "Education"? Do you force someone to be "educated"?
Suppose they tell the "educator" to fuck off and mind their own fucking business?
Would there be any punishment for not being "educated"?
Do you have any idea how this would be used by the repukes to their benefit?
Nope, not happening and I would tell someone who tried to "educate" me to go pound sand right up their ass.
LuckyCharms
(17,425 posts)i don't know who funds it. Who funded the campaign that turned cigarettes smokers into social outcasts? I'm brainstorming some ideas in my post. Nothing more than that.
And "education" can mean many things. For example, if you, as a Marine Combat Engineer, told me the details of what it was like to be a marine combat engineer, I would respect your experience and listen to what you had to say. I may think you are telling me the truth, I may think you are exaggerating, or I may not believe you at all. My point is, you would have my respect enough for me to at least listen to what you had to say. You wouldn't be "forcing" me to learn the complexities of being a marine combat engineer, would you? You would be educating me. I would take that education, or I would leave that education, but at the very least, you would have given me food for thought, because I have enough respect for military personnel to listen to their experience in a particular subject matter.
If a civilian in a respected and highly regarded public service position explained how he or she viewed fact vs. opinion, I would view that opinion in the same manner. Education is not about forcing a thought, it is about giving food for thought. It is not about telling people what to believe, and it is not about punishing someone if they decide not to believe you. Education is about presenting a thought in a manner that is logical and persuasive enough to get people thinking.
So, if someone politely presents a case to you, and you want to tell them to go pound sand up their ass, I guess that's fine with me. You want to tell them to fuck off? That's fine with me too. What I'm not fine with is the belligerent tone of your response when I am just quickly brainstorming some ideas. But just because I am not fine with that, I'm not going to tell you to fuck off or go pound sand up your ass.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)I meant that in a general term and I apologize if it came off that way.
I don't go up to people who have a different view of things and try to "educate" them, I generally mind my own business and go about my day and I would never talk about my military career to a total stranger on the street.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and ideas, that's what the 1A is for and I respect that, even if I disagree with some of your ideas.
There are some great ideas in your original post, and then, IMO, there are some not so great ideas.
Peace.
LuckyCharms
(17,425 posts)I wasn't trying to come off that way. And I know that you did not insult me personally at all.
I guess what I'm thinking is that if your average citizen sees a military man/woman, for example, or a law enforcement officer, standing in the street, in their uniform, people would naturally gravitate toward them. For example, I'm generally not a huge fan of cops, but if I walk by one, I'll give him/her at least a smile and a nod. I have family in all branches of the service, including the Marines, so I tend to have respect for military personnel. And generally, I think that people tend to show deference and respect to people in uniform.
Now what if there was a civilian force, in uniform, that commanded as much respect as the military? A civilian force that was serving their country in a different manner than the military does. A force that was trained in different specialties than law enforcement, or the military. A civilian force that required intensive training, and a force that required personality traits that were exceptional. A force that a person would be proud to join.
It's kind of like the concept of community policing, which I am in favor of. When cops used to walk the beat, stop and talk with people in the community, get to know people by name. Who would give people advice, and help them out if they could.
I'm picturing a group of service minded individuals who would like to serve their country in a way that directly helps people on a personal basis. A group who is knowledgeable in social resources that can be used to help a person with an addiction, or mental illness. A group of people who are trained in interacting with the public, on a daily basis, in a positive way. And also, one of this group's objectives is to help identify potential problems before they start. What I'm talking about here is nothing like what the Guardian Angels did/do. I'm talking about something different than that. I'm not talking about a group of people that patrol the streets and try to protect people from physical harm.
I'm going to go a little deep here. I think a lot of the reasons why it seems that a lot of the people in this country have seemingly lost their minds is that they are truly lost souls. And I think the nation as a whole feels that "nobody is going to save us". People are afraid to call the police these days if they have a problem. The military can certainly defend the country as a whole, but there is really no one helping people fight their own demons. Well, let me rephrase that...there are people and organizations that do help people socially, but you have to find them, you have to look for them yourself.
What if there was an actual civil organization, funded by the government, whose main purpose was to help people out in everyday situations. To guide them to resources that would help them? Who would shoot the shit with them for 10 minutes and make their day better? Who could have actual discussions with people who needed someone to talk to? Who could gain people's trust enough to discuss hard issues? Who could help you carry your 50 pounds of groceries up 3 flights of stairs to your apartment when they see you are struggling because you have a bad back?
The positivity that an organization like this could spread would have an enormous impact. This country is in a bad place right now. We're in trouble. Big trouble. We need help. We need positive examples of how people in official positions are able to make our lives better. We need people who are able to garner respect and snap people out of this mass funk that the country is in. People who can express their opinions to others via casual conversations on why some of the things that they read and hear simply are not true. I'm not suggesting COMMANDING people to change their messed up beliefs, what I am suggesting is a respected organization of smart people that are able to talk to people immediately and face to face. People that can at least attempt to plant seeds that may begin others on a journey that will release them from their cult-like beliefs. An empathetic civilian force, unarmed, knowledgeable, well trained in psychology and de-escalation tactics, whose purpose is to help people and head off potential problems.
These people could be available daily at schools, shopping malls, churches, grocery stores, and even have official offices in rural areas.
No political discussions would be necessary. No talking about the left vs. the right. No talking about gun control directly. Face to face interactions with someone who exhibits empathy. Who talks about kindness vs. unkindness.
Because I'll get down to the core of the matter...the shit that is going on in this country will continue for the rest of time unless someone much much smarter than me starts thinking about unorthodox solutions such as what I am presenting here. I may be all wet and fucked up in what I am thinking to be a solution, but how else do you even begin to turn things around with an actual cult that consists of millions of people? How do you even BEGIN to address something like that unless you do something drastically different than what we have been doing?
You and I can discuss this all day, DU can discuss this every day, media can discuss this every day, but the fact of the matter is that something has to change in a big way, because the damage done, and the hate unleashed by tfg is so profound, so deep, so heinous, that it is going to require a new way of thinking by those who realize what has happened to this country, in order to solve the problem.
Thanks for the discussion, and again, my sincere apologies that I came off poorly in my response to you.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)One side with guns. The other with something else I guess.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it took the women's rights movement from 1848 to 1920 to get the vote.
Like the Electoral College, people go on about how it will not happen now. But someone has to get it started. What if Elizabeth Cady Stanton thought like that? How far behind would we be? But she did not demand it be this year or never.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)repeals one of the Bill of Rights amendments is not going to happen. There is no way for such a thing to happen, other than a complete rewrite of the Constitution at a Constitutional Convention, which is also something that will not occur.
People who propose such things may have good intentions, but it is unworkable. Instead, we need to codify the meaning of the second amendment in a way that will withstand Supreme Court examination. That will be difficult, but is not impossible.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,363 posts)Johonny
(20,833 posts)and stop being afraid to counter the narrative that it is a right to bear any arms without any regulation. It simply is a right for the states to form state militias and states have the right to regulate those militias.
maxsolomon
(33,310 posts)in DC v Heller.
BusterMove
(11,996 posts)to serve in securing our liberties - all the purposes layed down in the preamble of the Constitution depended greatly on the Militias of the Several states. They pre-dated the Constitution - they weren't something new - there is no definition found in the Constitution. These State entities existed for years, and had already been codfied as mandatory in the Article of Confederation. They were recognized and made mandatory in Article 1/S8 and Art2/S2. Yes - the States get to appoint the officers, and to organize and train (regulate) them per Congress.
The founders/states knew that giving the Federal Govt power over the ability to arm the militias, they might easily DISarm them. THAT is what the 2nd is about. The State militias MUST exist, they MUST be composed of "the people" just as they always were, and they MUST be effective.