Reality Check

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
To base changes in constitutional law on emotion is to devalue what the framers of this country had in mind. We hear the talking heads in the media repeatedly and a few here referring to the second amendment as a mechanism for self protection from the evil doers of the world. This my fellow citizens of the republic, is fiction. It was designed to protect us from the evil that resides in an out of control elected body that runs amok. Contrary to what I consider the most important document of any manmade document in the history of mankind.

If the discussion of the second amendment is based on emotion then I consider the discussion over. Never can we let the seriousness of legislation be swayed by what is felt by the heart and not evaluated in detail by the head. I have refrained from writing anything about this for a few days now, because I too am affected by the massive death of people in Newtown. As horrible as this was we cannot let this change the constitution in anyway, much less change the first amendment because someone shouts to run, there is a gunman, mistakenly sending you to the shooter instead.

When the argument of the second amendment arises, and the hopelessness of children being murdered by an insane gunman, it does not explain one's reaction to the gruesome scene by that hopeless statement that guns will never help you against bombs, tanks, and drones. The North Vietnamese will be happy to explain tactics, and dogged determination to overcome these short comings, and introduce you to rat tunnels, the infamous AK47, rice, and fish.

If the 2nd amendment changes are based on death and saving lives then it has to be said we have several instances where death is much greater by other causes. Such as those by doctors mistakes. In fact death by firearm isn't even listed in the leading cause of death in theTop 15 Causes as reported by the CDC. Of course this statement runs contrary to the talking heads seeking to push an agenda troublesome to a free republic.

If the 2nd amendment changes are based on number of deaths by a single individual then serial killers have to be taken into account in which Ted Bundy one of the top five serial killers didn't murder a single victim with a firearm. In fact none of the top five serial killers used a firearm, and all had more than 20 victims, with the exception being Jeffery Dahmer at 17. The idea that serial killers run among us daily proves the point you can't legislate an unstable psychopath, or a person's morality.

In regards to weapons such as a so called "Assault Rifle" ie. AR15, then this is really a performance issue. Much the same as legislating a Corvette because it could triple the national speed limit when called upon. Needless to say importing Ferrari's would entail additional training, increased taxes, safety testing, and a national registration program where DUI's and excessive traffic violations would disqualify you. Let us not forget Ferrari car shows and clubs would be legislated out of existence as quickly as possible.

So why is it people really want to eliminate guns? What is there goal? When it happens, what will you do living in Detroit with an average police response time of 24 minutes, a murder rate up 10% as evil climbs through your bedroom window? More Importantly what will you do when your government becomes so oppressive you need to take action and can't?

Only in America can the President call for the change in 2nd amendment legislation to the free republic through the United Nations, as it supplies weapons to terror organizations and drug cartels on its borders.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Well, you do realize we have a judicial branch whose soul responsibility is interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution,
Key word being interpretation. i.e.- what does this mean and how does it apply to today's questions surrounding.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPlow
 


Good day MrPlow the Supreme Court has already and recently found in favor of a citizens right to own and posses a firearm in conjunction with the 2nd amendment. The president on the other hand hand on the first day after being rehired for a 2nd term immediately went to the United Nations and asked to start up Arms Trade Treaty once again. A treaty to help in export of firearms from the US, but also contains legislation that could be detrimental to the 2nd amendment.

Taken From the Washington Times:

"Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement. Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn't become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected."





new topics
 
3

log in

join