VA Tech Shootings

To the contrary. Article 1, section 4 gives them permission to set the rules for elections as they see fit, and Amendment 15 gives non-whites the right to vote (actually, it prohibits discrimination based on race or former servitude status) and Amendment 19 (If memory serves) gives women the right to vote (actually prohibits discrimination based on sex), then amendment 26 says that 18 is the age at which no one shall be denied the right to vote on account of age.

The 17th amendment set the law in how we vote for senators.

Very shortly after the ratification of the 17th amendment, it was established that if a person possessed the qualifications requisite for voting for a Senator, his right to vote for such an officer was not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen but had its foundation in the Constitution of the United States.

Federal law does not set every standard, however. For example, FL may make it legal for felons to vote. (Although, I always thought it was a Constitutional prohibition, apparently, it's not.) The Fed doesn't demand that you always use a particular maching. CA and OR (I think) don't count absentee ballots unless they could change the outcome of the election.

 

And those arguments can be (and have been) used against voting, free speech, etc.

Look at how sensitive people are today and how much speech is abridged because it just seems so right that you shouldn't be allowed to say _____.

All I have done is posed some questions using the same argument against other rights. I have in no way implied that you have done so. I am simply showing the falacy of your words that are narrowly applied to one right and how easily it can be applied to others.

That's why there are measures in place that lets us amend it. However, when knee-jerk reactionaries don't get their way, they tend to simply ignore the law, and make illegal (unconstitutional) laws.

This does nothing more than erode the entire judicial and legislative system, and puts too much power in the hands of particular people, whether the president or congress or SCOTUS.

Not you yourself, only your argument.

If it's "good for the people" to abridge one right, why not the others?

Why not use Heinlein's idea of earning the right to vote (and earning full citizenship status) by military service?

Instead of being rights, why not earn the right to vote and the right to speak freely?

An aside that is only semi-relevent to the discussion at hand: Isaac Asimov did have an interesting idea in that every citizen has the right to one vote, but could earn more up to a set limit. For example, by passing a test on political knowledge, you could earn another. By educational achievements, another. To him, who was an avowed liberal, the only drawback was that most intelligent and educated people were very conservative, so the agendas that he supported would never get anywhere, but he still thought it could present a good benchmark and keep uneducated welfare types from controlling the voting process by having their votes bought by the politicians.

And, as you seem oblivious to, I have pointed out more than once that there are ways in place to amend it. But, it's intentionally difficult to do, so it's not amended on a whim.

Also, I take offense at your suggestion that I equate the US Constitution with Scriptures.

But, the US Constitution is the basis for our government, and as such, it is (and the people) are our ruling authorities. Does the Bible not tell us to obey it?

Show me where I have suggested that you have any belief other than what you have stated.

I have not.

But, that sort of implication seems to be the only defense you have against my argument of substituting other rights in place of the one that you do seem to think it's OK to abridge.

 

Sorry. You are wrong, Hope.

And it is a common misconception.

You are simply confusing rules for elections with a Constitutional right to vote that the Constitution does not grant.

The 15th Amendment grants no one the "right to vote". It simply bans certain forms of discrimination in the event an election is held in which that person is otherwise authorized to vote.

 

Still, the point is, he has to get within a few feet of you to be able to harm you with a knife or bat. If you see him first, you might be able to keep him at bay, or get away. Not so if he has a gun (and you might not even have a chance to reach for yours, while we're at it!)
Also, the same with this ideal "everyone armed" situation, where everyone pitches into stop the bad guy, and bullets are flying all over the place. Now, you're talking about innocent bystanders being in danger.

And that's the point. Because of the gun's potential range, it is generally, overall, more dangerous.

Even that is not something we should "relish", as if it were a good event we are hoping will happen. That is something we should hope and pray never has to be used. Again, it is the attitude, and we must remember our natural inclination to glory in our own strength and power.
I guess most of the "glee" I spoke of was on the other Christian board I was on. But even puns like this from p.3 of here: "But then again I define gun control as a firm grip, careful aim, and a slow squeeze of the trigger", seem to make light of the whole issue, as if it is something one would be happy to do, rather than a serious matter that should not be undetaken lightly. It also reminds me of something one might hear on a gangsta rap.

It's fear too; that's just as much apart of the survival instinct. It's just being buried beneath the strong "anger" front, and "gung ho" aggression.

You're missing the point. You missed the key word from yesterday; the ATTITUDE I am seeing, of "tresspassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" (even though that particular statement wasn't made here) is what is possibly murderous, AND egocentric. (Again, arguing all kinds of guns should be legal, because I'm gonna to pack my pistols, and wipe outthat violating scum and ride off into the sunset).
So people came down on all suicides as going to Hell for being "egocentric" and "not trusting God", and show no mercy or compassion, yet they are reacting to the same survival mechanism that drives one to want to kill an enemy. (Escape from pain or potential harm). So by the same token, it can be argued that many of the same people seem to be trusting in a gun itself, the same way anyone can make an idol out of something, even if provided or allowed by God. The difference is that killing others has under certain circumstances been allowed in the Bible, while killing onesself was never. Still, since it is a survival mechanism, we have to be careful, even with what God provides or allows. Just like with food, money and sex; it is of our "natural" (fleshy) nature, and thus possible to be egocentric with it, and it become just as much sin as what God doesn't allow. So we should be careful of judging another the way people did with suicides.
Again, the attitude I am seeing seems to be more "gung ho; wild wild west" than scriptural reflection. (Notice, the Bible and God hardly even come up in the discussion, and the Constitution becoming almost like a replacement, as Andre pointed out). Remember, the villain to us, is first, a lost soul who needs Christ. If he deserves to die for being in your home, we all deserve to die for our sins as well. We must never forget that, and get into the mindset of many nonbelievers and mainline nominal Christians that one is "good" because they never killed anybody.

I actually was thinking in terms of the event where shooting occurs, not "lecturing" or "being nice". That is nowhere in any of my statements. Again, a knee jerk emotional reaction of hearing things the other person didn't actually say.

And this is what I mean. It's no longer "defense" then. You want to be judge, jury and executioner. And others do not even seem to be arguing "if necessary". It's just "if he comes into my house, he's dead".

Again, issues like this (just like the free market" one last fall) it always comes down to "either my way, or you're a radical liberal; nothing in between". So it's deliberately try to kill him, or you're "playing nice". There are ways to stop the threat, but it seems people want to kill, whether they have to or not.

Problem is; again; what some are describing is no longer accidental.

I don't know much about that law, but from what I have heard, deadly force is something to be used with serious reservation. Remember, the cops when they arrive there do not know what happened, or who belonged where. They have to make sure it was not a homicide, so you are kind of "suspect", and we all know that the law may say one thing on paper, but in practice, it might be much more complicated.

Now that's a non-sequitur, and another knee-jerk reaction that overgeneralizes in its comparison. Like you said, any object can be used for killing. But we can't get rid of every object in the universe. Some however, are made specifically for killing. That is what is being debated. This is basically a "cut your nose off to spite your face" kind of reasoning. Because we can't get rid of all potentially deadly objects, then why not just allow even deadlier ones to proliferate.

Safety programs won't help those caught in the crossfire, if we just encourage everyone to start shooting in situations, and if criminals are allowed to get all sorts of weapons, and even with your training, you are outgunned. That is the main concern of gun control.

Again, to pick up on a point I made. Andre is right, and you even acknowledged it. We cannot always account for all the factors. That is really our ultimate point. That's why answers to issues like this are difficult, and nobody has all the truth. Yet, we keep seeing one side claim not only to be the absolute truth, but also lump everything else into a diametric "opposite extreme" of total error. Things in life are almost never like that. And we won't get anywhere as long as we pretend they are.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Suppose that nation X in the year 1800 enshrined the "right of every citizen to light a fire" in their constitution. 200 years later, 10 % of the population develop an extreme allergy to fire - if these people even see a fire, they drop dead. One does not have to be a genius to see that the "right to light fires" needs to be revoked. To suggest that "by the same argument they will take away our right to free speech" is obviously faulty reasoning.

If you agree that I never implied that I held the beliefs in your "reworded" versions of my initial statement about guns, then we're good.

I am not sure what your overall point was - to show how people can engage in fallacious reasoning? In the same spirit, I could have written re-worded versions of the statement "People have the right to bear arms" as follows:

1. People have the right to drink and drive.

2. People have the right to kill funny looking people.

3. People have the right own thermonuclear weapons.

These reworded versions are statements about entirely different things. And dumb statements at that. How is that relevant to an otherwise "not obviously incorrect" statement about the right to bear arms?

 

OK, let's try another line of reasoning.

Why do you suppose the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment?

• Recourse if government proves tyrannical. (defense from large-scale tyranny).
• Defense from small-scale tyranny (i.e., home invasion, etc.).
• Defense from outside harmful forces (animals).
• Since militias are usually self-armed, this allows a militia, though well-regulated, to be armed as soon as it is formed (many may not like this idea...but it is a constitutional concept).

Well, we've covered those pretty well. Now...what would prompt today's government to revoke the second amendment? Possible arguments (and responses) follow:

• Too many folks are killed by guns.
  • THe above statement neglects this fact: an overwhelming majority of handgun deaths are due to illegal action. Making handguns illegal does not solve the action...these criminals are committing crimes anyhow.
  • Let's say 200,000 folks lose their lives to handguns every year. Let's also say that 10,000 deaths are prevented by citizens defending themselves (a misleading stat always refers to gun deaths versus justifiable homicide...forgetting that sometimes, the trigger isn't even pulled, and that many are not killed, but wounded). Will gun deaths go down, if the 2nd is revoked? Maybe. But crimes prevented will plummet, as the "good guys" turn in their weapons...and the "bad guys" don't.
• Guns are too dangerous for citizens to have.
  • Here we get back to a couple of important questions...
    • "Who owns me?"
    • "Who knows what's best for me?"
  • (let's stay out of theology for a second...of course for a Christian, we answer "God." But let's stay in the socio-political realm)...If you answer either with "The Gubmint," then we have almost nothing in common. Our founding fathers did not want an intrusive behemoth dictating every facet of our existence...this included the right to bear arms. But let's take this to a very practical realm:
    • I have several items in my possession that are very dangerous...deadly, in fact:
      • Several poisons for rodents, weeds, and insects.
      • Explosive chemicals...brake cleaner, gasoline, paint, mineral spirits.
      • Sharp objects.
      • Power tools that can kill...chainsaw, skil-saw, etc.
    • Fact is, the government shouldn't be looking at my stuff and saying, "you can't have that, it's dangerous." Otherwise, if "dangerous" is the criteria for government confiscation, all of the above stuff should be taken from me. If I'm being responsible, and my actions don't lead to suspicion, then there should be no problem. Keep this in mind: despite the claims from some, an overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and safe with their firearms.
  • Our country was built on liberty...in other words, "I own me...not the People's Republic of USA." As long as my actions do not infringe on the rights of others, I should be able to exercise my liberty. A further extension of this: "I know better what is best for me than Washington does." Hence, I resent the government spending my money and complicating my life to try and protect me from myself. When government crosses this line, the Big Brother's Camel has the nose in the tent...and you end up with bans on McDonald's fries (but that's another thread :thumbs: ).
• Citizens can't be trusted with firearms.
  • When did the change occur? We could be trusted in 1776, 1850, 1910, 1945, and 1970...but not now? Of course, there are hoodlums out there that can't be trusted with a gun...but we already have laws that restrict them. Maybe we should pour more money into enforcement of the gun laws on the books...but the fact is, if you're a criminal, you can't have a gun.
  • Every day we trust thousands of citizens to do things that if done wrongly will result in death and mayhem. For a few years, I drove a tractor-trailer...a much more dangerous weapon than a .25 caliber pistol. I passed the test, and got my license. If I was stupid, I would lose it. Sounds like a decent plan for gun ownership to me.

 

Everyone please join me in placing a prayer for those hurting at VA Tech on the Presidential Prayer Team's Wall of Prayer. Follow the link below:

http://www.presidentialprayerteam.net/comments/poll20070419comment.php

 

Very shortly after ratification of the 17th amendment, it was established that if a person possessed the qualifications requisite for voting for a Senator, his right to vote for such an officer was not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen but had its foundation in the Constitution of the United States.

United States vs Aczel

 

I never said such a thing. I simply took the reasoning you presented and applied it to other rights.

I have heard those same arguments presented by people who think that worship, speech, etc. should all be controlled "for the good of society".

Just like you are presenting opinions that law-abiding citizens should not be permitted to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Once again, you are comparing apples to apricots.

Driving is not a right. (Why does this one seem so difficult for you to grasp?)

The only time you have a right to kill funny looking people is when you are in danger of death or severe bodily injury from them.

I will agree that although thermonuclear weapons are arms in the strictest sense of the word, that the framers of the Constitution in no way envisioned such a thing. However, I would suspect that owning a cannon would not be out of the question.

 

What in the world makes you think that anyone here on this thread, no matter their likes or dislikes of guns are not praying? Because they're not making a big show of it? Because they're not signing onto some presidential prayer team?

I suspect that every single person here is praying for the families of those who were killed, those who were injured, and those that had to endure such a thing.

But, this is a current events forum.

That being said, one way to tell when the tourists arrive is when people start calling the police department and excitedly yell, "There's a guy walking down the street with a gun on his hip!"

To which the cops will reply, "So? Is he breaking a law?"

 

Just because I didn't talk about it publicly doesn't mean I didn't pray...or post prayers...several of them, in fact, on the site... :thumbs:

 

Thread closing warning! This thread will be closed no sooner than 1:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators!

Lady Eagle

 

Closed per notice, LE.