Dayton shooting: Nine confirmed killed, shooter also dead - BBC News

carotman said:
La constitution dit que les américains ont le droit de s'armer.

À ma connaissance, ça ne dit pas quelles armes ils ont le droit de prendre.

J'imagine donc qu'ils pourraient avoir le droit de s'armer, avec les armes qui étaient en vigueur à la signature de la constitution. (des armes de 1787 donc).

Là, ils réclament des droits ancestraux, de la même manière que les amérindiens se promènent en skidoo pour aller faire leur chasse/pêche ancestrale à coup de dynamite.
Click to expand...

Malheureusement l'argument de QUAND la constitution a ete cree/signee est tres use et si on y pense une seconde: Invalide.

Sure, en 1787 ils avaient le doua d'avoir des mousquets qui avec un peu de pratique pouvaient ne prendre que 50-60 secondes a recharger.

Disons surtout qu'en 1787 le facteur humain etait pas dans l'equation calisse - le monde dans ce temps la avaient de la misere a se rendre a 30 ans sans mourir d'une maladie contagieuse ou une simple infection suite a une blessure mineure. Je vois mal comment un gars mal intentionne aurait pu prendre 2-3 mosquets et attaquer le bar local - malgre que quand ca arrivait ca finissait en fusillade a la Tombstone.

Tiré (turbopun) d'un de mes western préférés:


En 2019 ils ont le droit de s'armer pour matcher ce que le gouvernement a comme armes. (sans compter les armes que le gouvernement ont mais qu'on sait pas...)

La ligne exacte est: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Je dis pas c'est une bonne, ni une mauvaise chose mais c'est dans la constitution.
 
lord_galathon said:
Malheureusement l'argument de QUAND la constitution a ete cree/signee est tres use et si on y pense une seconde: Invalide.

Sure, en 1787 ils avaient le doua d'avoir des mousquets qui avec un peu de pratique pouvaient ne prendre que 50-60 secondes a recharger.

Disons surtout qu'en 1787 le facteur humain etait pas dans l'equation calisse - le monde dans ce temps la avaient de la misere a se rendre a 30 ans sans mourir d'une maladie contagieuse ou une simple infection suite a une blessure mineure. Je vois mal comment un gars mal intentionne aurait pu prendre 2-3 mosquets et attaquer le bar local - malgre que quand ca arrivait ca finissait en fusillade a la Tombstone.

Tiré (turbopun) d'un de mes western préférés:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIpVWTZYWr8

En 2019 ils ont le droit de s'armer pour matcher ce que le gouvernement a comme armes. (sans compter les armes que le gouvernement ont mais qu'on sait pas...)

La ligne exacte est: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Je dis pas c'est une bonne, ni une mauvaise chose mais c'est dans la constitution.
Click to expand...

shall not be infringed
shall not be infringed
shall not be infringed
shall not be infringed

les anti-armes ont de la misère à comprendre ça
 
The constitution isn't some perfect document that can't be changed. If that were the case, gun rights wouldn't exist, it wasn't part of the original constitution of 1787 it was added 4 years later in 1791 as part of the bill or rights.
 
Spiter_01 said:
The constitution isn't some perfect document that can't be changed. If that were the case, gun rights wouldn't exist, it wasn't part of the original constitution of 1787 it was added 4 years later in 1791 as part of the bill or rights.
Click to expand...

alright then who's to stop the government from changing any amendment? such as the right to free speech?

the constitution IS a perfect document. If I was american, I wouldn't want it changed.
 
S1FAP said:
alright then who's to stop the government from changing any amendment? such as the right to free speech?

the constitution IS a perfect document. If I was american, I wouldn't want it changed.
Click to expand...

Slavery was legal and protected under the original constitution.
 
Spaceman Spiff said:
Slavery was legal and protected under the original constitution.
Click to expand...

exactly. the consitution is a perfect document. nothing about it needs to be changed.

also it's not exactly that simple

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6301/

Slavery was a great evil, to be sure, but the Constitution was neither its source nor its guarantor. Indeed, the rhetoric of the Revolution and the principles of the Constitution both seemed to undermine claims for arbitrary power and the private use of force, which were inherent in the relationship between master and slave. This tension between slavery and the principles of American government was palpable during the Revolutionary era, and denunciations of slavery were commonplace. James Madison, long remembered as the Father of the Constitution, considered chattel slavery to be “the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man,” and Madison expressed his own view during debates at the Constitutional Convention that it would “be wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” The influential Virginian (and slaveholder) was not alone in his reticence to name the institution, and it is telling that the word “slavery” never appears in the constitutional text.
Click to expand...
 
lord_galathon said:
And it took a civil war to "officially" eradicate. That's what it'll take to remove america's right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

meh.

conservatives seem to be OK with Trump's gun laws. Because they follow their leader blindly.

The only americans who are 100% pro-gun are the hardcore libertarians, who would have very very low numbers in a civil war.
 
S1FAP said:
alright then who's to stop the government from changing any amendment? such as the right to free speech?

the constitution IS a perfect document. If I was american, I wouldn't want it changed.
Click to expand...

the government itself, there's an incredibly high bar to pass amendments to the constitution. To my knowledge, every democracy has a built-in mechanism to amend the constitution in the future.

So at what point would you propose the constitution not be allowed to change?
the 1920's? Because you'd still have prohibition in the US. Prohibition was the 18th amendment and was only repealed by the 21st amendment 14 years later.
What if we stop all the changes before the 18th amendment then? Women wouldn't have the right to vote then as that was brought in on the 19th amendment.

Let's say you picked a more recent date like 1950, welp no 22nd amendment. Obama could have run for a 3rd term or forever. Shit maybe Bill would still be in the white house.
 
Spiter_01 said:
the government itself, there's an incredibly high bar to pass amendments to the constitution. To my knowledge, every democracy has a built-in mechanism to amend the constitution in the future.

So at what point would you propose the constitution not be allowed to change?
the 1920's? Because you'd still have prohibition in the US. Prohibition was the 18th amendment and was only repealed by the 21st amendment 14 years later.
What if we stop all the changes before the 18th amendment then? Women wouldn't have the right to vote then as that was brought in on the 19th amendment.

Let's say you picked a more recent date like 1950, welp no 22nd amendment. Obama could have run for a 3rd term or forever. Shit maybe Bill would still be in the white house.
Click to expand...

The flaw with your argument is that with every amendment you cite, rights were ADDED to the American people. The right to have alcohol, the right for women to vote, the protection against dictatorship (see what's happening in Russia under Putin for example) which protects America's right to democracy.

Removing the right to bear arms is a HUGE constitutional change that would deprive Americans of a very specific but very important right.

You realize of course that once the right of Americans to have firearms is revoked - hypothetically - all firearms in circulation that are NOT under some kind of authority's jurisdiction will be illegal yes?

That's going to be easy to control.
 
lord_galathon said:
The flaw with your argument is that with every amendment you cite, rights were ADDED to the American people. The right to have alcohol, the right for women to vote, the protection against dictatorship (see what's happening in Russia under Putin for example) which protects America's right to democracy.

Removing the right to bear arms is a HUGE constitutional change that would deprive Americans of a very specific but very important right.

You realize of course that once the right of Americans to have firearms is revoked - hypothetically - all firearms in circulation that are NOT under some kind of authority's jurisdiction will be illegal yes?

That's going to be easy to control.
Click to expand...

The 18th amendment was a restriction and removal of rights (the right to consume alcohol) it was restored after.

You're just falling into the pro-gun trap. Have any of the proposed gun legislation called for a repeal of the 2nd amendment? Not to my knowledge. Shit, there's one right now that Mitch is blocking. Did Obama at any point call for a repeal of the 2nd amendment? Even if he had wanted to do, there are more than enough republican states to block a new amendment, ignoring federal opposition.

The NRA's done a really good job screaming "2nd amendment" at the top of their lungs. Does fixing background checks violate the 2nd amendment? What if you required people to wait 48 hours before taking possession of certain types of rifles? What about the bump stock ban that was passed under Trump?

There are a plethora of gun regulations that could be passed that have no impact on a citizen's capacity to procure and own a weapon and maybe a minimal impact on the ease of doing so. Unless you're an absolutist that believes that there should be no obstacle to gun ownership, no background checks, no classifications or anything.

The NRA is just selling to its base the "democratic boogieman" that's coming for their guns because if they don't they cease to be relevant and there goes all the donation money, flights on private jets and salaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top