We should not be arguing against gun control

[BAMCIS]

We should not be arguing against more gun control.

Instead we should be making the argument that we are defending the entire constitution.

As supporters of the 2nd amendment, we shouldn't be arguing against gun control, instead we should be making an argument for the constitution. Anything different is to tacitly agree with the premise the constitution is open to interpretation. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the constitution or came up with the amendment process.

In other words if you don't like what's in the constitution (or how it is written) then change it. Change it through the amendment process. But do not agree to the premise the constitution can be interpreted into (or contorted) it clearly does not say.

Read More

 

[Tangent123123]

What difference does it make what you argue? At the end of the day the anti gunners want to take all of your guns no matter what the constitution says. No amount of logic, reason or debate will change their minds. All you can do is hope there is enough support out there to let these people get their way.

 

[BAMCIS]

Gun control is a separate issue. The constitution is the supreme law of the land for a reason. It provides rights and protects the individual from the government. It protects the individual's rights. Even (at the moment) the unpopular rights. Making this argument makes them out to be the crackpots for wanting the contort the supreme law of the land (into something it clearly does not say).

 

[Tangent123123]

You are using logic. Logic does not apply to the anti's.

 

[Boomerang]

We should not be making an argument for the Constitution. If something is wrong with the Constitution, then we should change it (they would say), and I would have to agree.

The argument we should be making is simply that the availability of guns (to law abiding citizens) does not cause violent crime. We have to be careful to note that we should be looking at violent crime and murders, and NOT at gun crime & gun murders. If guns were not available the bad guys would use kitchen knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers like they do in England, but the overall rate of violent crime is not lower. Knives can also be used for mass killings like the 22 schoolchildren dead in China.

We cannot hide behind the second amendment.

We have to convince people that guns in the hands of good people are a *good* thing, not a bad thing, and will make this country safer.

The biggest problem is ignorance. People who are ignorant of guns and how they work, are usually afraid of them and simply assume that guns are Bad and they are the source of the violent crime problem. We have to challenge that assumption.

Our best approach is to educate people that guns (are / can be) good when they are in the right hands.

 

[Bigfoot]

Don't make it either/or.

It only takes a sentence or two to defend the Constitution. Doing that shames the people who don't care for it.

Also make it an emotional argument by recounting stories of people defending themselves.

 

[fuhr52]

The Anti's also have the backing of a SCOTUS that too often will not rule on the order of law but on political persuasion. Obama care ring a bell? Most of the anti-gun special interests are liberals. Liberals are very good at taking advantage of emotions. They have the help of the main stream media that will not question their motives.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

... It provides rights and protects the individual from the government. It protects the individual's rights.

Non, non et non. The Constitution DOES NOT PROVIDE RIGHTS! It recognizes rights. Notice that the amendments say that "the right of the people" shall not be infringed, not "the people are given the right"....

 

[BAMCIS]

Non, non et non. The Constitution DOES NOT PROVIDE RIGHTS! It recognizes rights. Notice that the amendments say that "the right of the people" shall not be infringed, not "the people are given the right"....

Semantics. Sorry. I'm not a constitutional attorney, but I have read the constitution. If the constitution were followed like it should be then ALL gun laws (including the 1934 NFA) is unconstitutional. The constitution has not provided that congress (or any other entity) can make any laws that infringe on those rights in any way. For example the constitution provides congress the authority under the commerce clause to levy taxes which is why Obamacare was ruled constitutional. To me regarding the Obamacare decision, the issue that should have been argued before the Supreme Court should have been there is nothing in the constitution that says it is governments responsibility to provide healthcare.

Here is a really scary thought. If the anti's were smart then they wouldn't be pushing for more gun control. Instead they'd be pushing for more and more taxes on our guns, bullets, primers and stuff like that. In short congress has the ability to tax us out of existance. The Obamacare decision opened this door.

 

[fd15k]

Semantics. Sorry. I'm not a constitutional attorney, but I have read the constitution. If the constitution were followed like it should be then ALL gun laws (including the 1934 NFA) is unconstitutional. The constitution has not provided that congress (or any other entity) can make any laws that infringe on those rights in any way. For example the constitution provides congress the authority under the commerce clause to levy taxes which is why Obamacare was ruled constitutional. To me regarding the Obamacare decision, the issue that should have been argued before the Supreme Court should have been there is nothing in the constitution that says it is governments responsibility to provide healthcare.

Here is a really scary thought. If the anti's were smart then they wouldn't be pushing for more gun control. Instead they'd be pushing for more and more taxes on our guns, bullets, primers and stuff like that. In short congress has the ability to tax us out of existance. The Obamacare decision opened this door.

Yes, if you take it out of context, then you reach the conclusion that you have. But if you were at least an armchair constitutional attorney, then you would know that it doesn't work that way.

 

[BAMCIS]

Yes, if you take it out of context, then you reach the conclusion that you have. But if you were at least an armchair constitutional attorney, then you would know that it doesn't work that way.

How then should it work? Please explain. Educate me.

 

[fd15k]

How then should it work? Please explain. Educate me.

Supreme Court has exclusive authority to decide what's constitutional and what's not. Such authority was assumed by the court in the early days of the Republic, and has never been challenged, including by the framers. Also, majority of the states (including WA,OR,CA) have joined the union already after court had that authority.