Obama: America needs "soul searching" on gun violence

The Advocate wrote:

Asking from an ethical and legal perspective, do you think it is necessary to separate gun culture from politics?

define, "gun culture", first.

OzRitz wrote:

How blind these ppl are from the right, Reagan was one of the main causes leading to the GFC. It was his administration that took all the rules off wall st and that is the opinion of almost every leading world economic experts. It's just unfortunate that you have Fox news telling you otherwise. He has been made into a modern republican icon because there was no one else. The rest were crooks or warmongers. The reality is that Nixon was a better president than him so that's saying something.

CALL FOR OBAMA TO VISIT ISRAEL, ALLAY IRAN... Report: Obama may visit Israel this month since it has been made clear to him that Isreal wasn't in Wisconsin and that Isreal didn't have black neighborhoods, both places Obama seeems to avoid..........more nightly news to come.

The Advocate wrote:

Asking from an ethical and legal perspective, do you think it is necessary to separate gun culture from politics?

You can't if you are including the constitution in politics.........

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>define, "gun culture", first.

Anything associated with this corrupt warmonger administration which allows for the wholesale elimination of any USA citizen at will! The very people that want so-called 'gun control'
are in fact the very people who should NEVER be allowed to have a gun OR make any decisions regarding gun ownership!

VOTE ROMNEY/RYAN 2012.

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>define, "gun culture", first.

Gun culture as the support and encouragement of the use of firearms in society for various reasons, ie hunting, sporting, self defence, all from a civilian perspective. Is it morally and legally acceptable to tout firearms in times of peace? How should they be regulated in times of crisis? How should you educate your children about firearms and their uses?

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>You can't if you are including the constitution in politics.........

The wording to the 2nd Ammendment states:

"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."

"Militia" implies that it applies to a period of crisis, as there would be no logical reason why a militia would be needed in times of peace. The "security of a free state" is ambiguous because that passage was written during conflict with a foreign power; does it apply to protection from an external or internal threat? What does "free state" entail as to differentiating between freedom of government, citizenry and the common law?

That, and certainly things like permits would be seen as affronting the "right to bear arms," but therein lies the problem; a literalist interpretation is too broad, and one must take into context the events and changes of the current time period. Constitutions are legal binding documents but they are never untouchable and can be subject to changes; it wasn't only till much later, for example, that universal suffrage was constitutionally guaranteed to American citizens despite ethnicity, colour, wealth, or gender.

What are your thoughts on the subject? How would you interpret the context of the 2nd Ammendment in the 21st century?

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>The wording to the 2nd Ammendment states:

"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."

"Militia" implies that it applies to a period of crisis, as there would be no logical reason why a militia would be needed in times of peace. The "security of a free state" is ambiguous because that passage was written during conflict with a foreign power; does it apply to protection from an external or internal threat? What does "free state" entail as to differentiating between freedom of government, citizenry and the common law?

That, and certainly things like permits would be seen as affronting the "right to bear arms," but therein lies the problem; a literalist interpretation is too broad, and one must take into context the events and changes of the current time period. Constitutions are legal binding documents but they are never untouchable and can be subject to changes; it wasn't only till much later, for example, that universal suffrage was constitutionally guaranteed to American citizens despite ethnicity, colour, wealth, or gender.

What are your thoughts on the subject? How would you interpret the context of the 2nd Ammendment in the 21st century?

Wow! What a stretch!
It amazes me how people misconstrue this amendment.

It is very simple, but I'll go real real slow for you, ok?

A militia is necessary to the security of a Free State. We are on the same page here right?
Ok, who makes up a Militia? People right?
Ok, if something comes up to require a militia, and people have to come together to form that militia, where do the arms come from? The people supply their own.
Thus: 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.

The amendment was worded the way it was supposed to be. It has been shit on repeatedly. It does not need to be changed to fit the 21st Century. The 21st Century needs to change to fit the second amendment.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
The "security of a free state" is ambiguous because that passage was written during conflict with a foreign power; does it apply to protection from an external or internal threat?

What foreign power were we in conflict with at the time of the Constitution?

Get Real wrote:

<quoted text>What foreign power were we in conflict with at the time of the Constitution?

Not to mention, a foreign power is going to invade the country, not a state.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow! What a stretch!
It amazes me how people misconstrue this amendment.
It is very simple, but I'll go real real slow for you, ok?
A militia is necessary to the security of a Free State. We are on the same page here right?
Ok, who makes up a Militia? People right?
Ok, if something comes up to require a militia, and people have to come together to form that militia, where do the arms come from? The people supply their own.
Thus: 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.
The amendment was worded the way it was supposed to be. It has been shit on repeatedly. It does not need to be changed to fit the 21st Century. The 21st Century needs to change to fit the second amendment.

If there is a time of peace, why is a militia even needed? I don't see the Swedes or Germans forming "militias" of their own.

And the ammendment was written in the context of an 18th century rebellion, not a century that includes shootings of civilians by madmen. You forget that constitutions are rewritten to fit their time and context, not the other way around. If what your last sentece said is still applicable, then the only people who would be granted any sort of power or aid would be rich white landowners, not even women or blacks.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
If there is a time of peace, why is a militia even needed? I don't see the Swedes or Germans forming "militias" of their own.
And the ammendment was written in the context of an 18th century rebellion, not a century that includes shootings of civilians by madmen. You forget that constitutions are rewritten to fit their time and context, not the other way around. If what your last sentece said is still applicable, then the only people who would be granted any sort of power or aid would be rich white landowners, not even women or blacks.

Look I'm sure if the constitution had also included the right to carry a firearm on a horse saddle you would be stepping on horse poop right now all over the streets of new york. Such is the mindless reading of a document written over 200 yrs ago and applying it to a population that has increased 10 fold and law enforcement is everywhere you go. None of this applied 200 yrs ago nor should the right to own a gun apply now.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
The wording to the 2nd Ammendment states:
"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."
"Militia" implies that it applies to a period of crisis, as there would be no logical reason why a militia would be needed in times of peace. The "security of a free state" is ambiguous because that passage was written during conflict with a foreign power; does it apply to protection from an external or internal threat? What does "free state" entail as to differentiating between freedom of government, citizenry and the common law?
That, and certainly things like permits would be seen as affronting the "right to bear arms," but therein lies the problem; a literalist interpretation is too broad, and one must take into context the events and changes of the current time period. Constitutions are legal binding documents but they are never untouchable and can be subject to changes; it wasn't only till much later, for example, that universal suffrage was constitutionally guaranteed to American citizens despite ethnicity, colour, wealth, or gender.
What are your thoughts on the subject? How would you interpret the context of the 2nd Ammendment in the 21st century?

Since our government is constantly skirting the constitution and placing infringments and controls not called for in the constittution on us, we are in a constant state of attack from our politicans that prefer life long benefits to governing as required by their oath.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
If there is a time of peace, why is a militia even needed? I don't see the Swedes or Germans forming "militias" of their own.
And the ammendment was written in the context of an 18th century rebellion, not a century that includes shootings of civilians by madmen. You forget that constitutions are rewritten to fit their time and context, not the other way around. If what your last sentece said is still applicable, then the only people who would be granted any sort of power or aid would be rich white landowners, not even women or blacks.

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go
Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT

Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago.“In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president,“four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”
Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

August 19, 2012 | 17:57 Newsweek Magazine - Obama's Gotta Go
-
Shocking Newsweek Cover:'Hit the Road, Barack - Why We Need a New President'
-
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because a sellout Obama has broken his promises, and it's clear that the GOP ticket's path to prosperity is our only hope..
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08...
-
It's unfortunate our first black president ended up being our worst president... Probably our last..
-
It's the culture...

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>If there is a time of peace, why is a militia even needed? I don't see the Swedes or Germans forming "militias" of their own.

And the ammendment was written in the context of an 18th century rebellion, not a century that includes shootings of civilians by madmen. You forget that constitutions are rewritten to fit their time and context, not the other way around. If what your last sentece said is still applicable, then the only people who would be granted any sort of power or aid would be rich white landowners, not even women or blacks.

That's the whole point! The people have to be armed in case a militia is suddenly needed.
Do you think the government is going to lift all gun restraints and laws suddenly so we can arm ourselves better to fight them with if need be?
Go live with the Swedes or Germans if you like their methods so much. Here in America, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Germany was disarmed when Hitler came into power. How did that work out?
Sure Constitutions can be changed. That doesn't mean it makes them better. It depends on the change that is made. The problems we have today are the result of poor choices in changing the constitution or just plain ignoring the constitution.
As you pointed out the constitution has changed to allow women and blacks to vote, so your point about who has the right to keep and bear arms is void.

OzRitz wrote:

<quoted text>Look I'm sure if the constitution had also included the right to carry a firearm on a horse saddle you would be stepping on horse poop right now all over the streets of new york. Such is the mindless reading of a document written over 200 yrs ago and applying it to a population that has increased 10 fold and law enforcement is everywhere you go. None of this applied 200 yrs ago nor should the right to own a gun apply now.

That is total BS. The right to keep and bear arms is the only thing that preserves any semblance of remaining free in this country.
The reason this country is in the poor shape it is in now is because the constitution has been changed and manipulated with poor thought and judgement.
If you think Americans will give up their right to keep and bear arms, you are wrong! There WILL be rebellion if it is attempted.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Gun culture as the support and encouragement of the use of firearms in society for various reasons, ie hunting, sporting, self defence, all from a civilian perspective. Is it morally and legally acceptable to tout firearms in times of peace? How should they be regulated in times of crisis? How should you educate your children about firearms and their uses?

The 2nd Amendment provided Citizens the ability to quach a tyranical government. Hunting and self preservation are just bonuses.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Gun culture as the support and encouragement of the use of firearms in society for various reasons, ie hunting, sporting, self defence, all from a civilian perspective. Is it morally and legally acceptable to tout firearms in times of peace? How should they be regulated in times of crisis? How should you educate your children about firearms and their uses?

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. " (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun. " (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)

Citizens ought not fear their government, government ought to fear her Citizens.

Crime is hightest in the areas of our nation with the strictist gun regulations. D.C. among them.
Hiding behind your mothers apron will do you no good should the day arise when you will want your neighbors help against an oppressive government.

cooter wrote:

I know I'm a loser, but what ya gonna do harv? I'd hit myself with my purse, if I wasn't such a girly man.

Careful, those purses are dangerous...:)

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:

<quoted text>The 2nd Amendment provided Citizens the ability to quach a tyranical government. Hunting and self preservation are just bonuses.

Actually, it was put in the Constitution to guarantee the ability of Americans to form militias. More likely they'd be used to SUPPRESS rebellions than start them, as the Whiskey Rebellion showed.

What are suicide and gun homicides, incidentally? I hope you don't think those are 'bonuses,' too?