Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

He's a colossal A-hat. Not a hole, but hat.

Despise those who would dare even attempt to do the things he's DONE.

I'd say shame on him, but I doubt he has a shred of it.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Actually the supreme court already has given its stand on the meaning and definition of the second amendment, so I don't see how a constitutional convention will help with that, as we seen when the definition of the rights for two persons with the same sex to get married how come the states that were opposing to it and trying to pass laws regarding the issue, didn't try to use the power of the republic to exercise their own interpretation, they are abiding by the Supreme court decision and interpretation of it.

a reply to: marg6043

A Constitutional Convention is more powerful than a Supreme Court ruling. If it were to happen, they could rewrite 2A to be a much stronger pro-gun protection than even the recent USSC rulings. They could even make gun rights absolute. Or they could revoke it entirely.

a reply to: marg6043

Yes, the supreme court made its stand on the meaning. But yet there are still unconstitutional rescrictions in place on the state and federal level. Firearms and same sex issues aren't the only issues that I meant when calling for a constitutional convention. It's a bit off topic, but said convention could do a number of things from finally forcing a balanced budget, congresional term limits, to all kinds of issues that congress is incapable of solving.

All that said, even with the the SC ruling on the 2nd Amendment, people are still questioning it and calling it antiquated. Just like people are still questioning and fighting same sex issues. The best way to knock it out is to make it unmistakable and its interpretation unfallable.

First I'll freely admit that I didn't waste 12 minutes of my life watching his speech but I did read some excerpts in the paper this morning. I agree with him that we need to have better control of our weapons but his starting point for that control and mine are radically different.
I think we should stop sending weapons to foreign countries. We should stop arming Mexican drug cartels and Colombian drug cartels and middle eastern terrorists. Those are the issues over which POTUS has some control, not domestic issues because our laws are clear on our rights to weapons. But NOOOOOO----he's up there lobbying for more money for the express purpose of perpetuating MORE KILLING---in countries other than ours. Why should residents of foreign countries have the right to "defend" themselves against "bad guys" with the latest, most lethal weapons but deny those same weapons to US citizens?
It is true that our country has become the biggest purveyor of violence in the world and this administration has provided the means, following in the footsteps of previous administrations.
Actions speak louder than words Mr. POTUS---quit selling weapons and disarm your security staff. Make the world a safer place if you actually believe what you are preaching at us. Meanwhile, I'll exercise my rights and not depend on a government to keep me safe.

a reply to: EternalSolace

The problem is, there will be several interpretations of the amendment represented at the New convention, just as there was at the original. I am all for disbanding the professional federal army and replacing it with a civilian militia who are expected to provide their own arms. It could then be made explicit that membership in a well organized mlitia is a prerequisite for owning arms.

a reply to: EternalSolace

You know I don't feel confident that a constitutional convention with only a few delegates from the states will be impartial to take what the people within the states really wants and not the wants of the particular delegates and their own personal agendas.

Hard to trust other people for the decisions of the majority this days.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: EternalSolace
Hard to trust other people for the decisions of the majority this days.

That point is irrefutable.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: EternalSolace

You know I don't feel confident that a constitutional convention with only a few delegates from the states will be impartial to take what the people within the states really wants and not the wants of the particular delegates and their own personal agendas.

Hard to trust other people for the decisions of the majority this days.

That's one of the risks of a Constitutional Convention and why I stated that the worst case scenario is a complete revocation of private gun rights. That being said, I generally trust delegates from my own state...appointed by my state representatives...to represent my interests, values and beliefs much more closely than the Supreme Court or some jackwagon senator from California. I'd be willing to roll the dice and support a CC if it came to it.

a reply to: vor78

But what if the states representatives are not in tune with your own believes, because they are not members of you party of choice.

I will freak out on that one.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: vor78

But what if the states representatives are not in tune with your own believes, because they are not members of you party of choice.

I will freak out on that one.

People forget just how difficult passing the first one was.

Hell there were many other 'documents' before the constitution was finally decided on, and ratified.

I think we are better off keeping the constitution, and just get rid of the politicians.

a reply to: marg6043

That's one of the risks of it. I have reservations about it myself, though I'd be tempted to take a chance on it given the current state legislature composition.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: neformore
You want the second amendment to be erased from history?

Where did I say that, exactly?

Why the hell can't people read properly these days?

Oh wait...because actually reading something doesn't suit your argument/rant.

I said laws can change. I didn't say it should be removed.

Thats the problem with this argument. People aren't rational about it.

At all.

a reply to: neformore

Nef?

That 'common sense' reforms does just exactly that.

Erases constitutional rights.

a reply to: neo96

What if politicizing something is the only way to change it?

originally posted by: BiffWellington
a reply to: neo96

What if politicizing something is the only way to change it?

Well they have been politicizing guns in this country since 1934.

That lead to machine guns getting banned.

Of course everyone wasn't going around playing Al Capone, and they really did not care.

Over 70 years of gun control was suppose to stop ALL the baddies from doing bad things.

a reply to: neo96

Not to mention that almost all the regulations over the past seventy years vastly effected law abiding citizens and not criminals. Also, it chipped away at our rights regulation by regulation.

Which one of your gun rights has EVER been denied?

a reply to: neo96

a reply to: neformore

Why can't you be rational about the fact that the Second amendment doesn't need to be changed?... Oh, that's right, because your argument is not in favor of the second amendment. But apparently you only want to see your arguments, and those who "agree with you" as rational. Obviously you see the arguments of those of us who don't agree with you as irrational.

That's the circular line of thinking that those who are against the Second Amendment use normally. Similarly back in the day, the British who lived in England were see as civilized and rational, while those "subjects of the crown" who lived in the New World were seen as irrational, backwards, uncivilized, and barbarians. History repeats itself it seems.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You DO know that, "I know you are but what am I" isn't a good debate tactic. In fact it is childish.

OK, I'll ask directly, what should be done about these almost monthly shootings?