Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

When you infringe on what shall not be infringed, I do see wrong in the intent. The only way to do that is give the word infringed a new meaning. Now we have done that sort of thing already. Continuing to do it will make the Constitution meaningless and I am asking if that is the intent?

 

I suppose if the court lets stuff pass that shouldn't be the system still works as designed right? It all boils down to 5 out of 9 people voting on how they see things.

 

Are you upset about all of the added amendments beyond the original bill of rights in the constitution?
Do you feel like the founders got everything right, and adding or changing anything about their words and thoughts from 230 years ago makes the constitution meaningless?
Was it wrong to abolish slavery, as times and thoughts changed on the subject some 80 years after the founders got it right?
Was it wrong to give women the right to vote 130 years or so after the founders knew everything there was to say on anything?

 

I turn on CNN and there’s a teenager yelling at me about gun control...

I switch to FOX and there talking about if we should reimplement prayer in the schools to see if that could help...

This ain’t going anywhere anytime soon.

 

I’m just over here trying to enjoy some tide pods.

 

If you think tide pods are good you should try the cotton candy stuffed behind the walls. A little itchy and burny, but deliciousss.

 

>>>>Not at all.

>>> No, it certainly does not when done by amendment.

>>> No, and excellent use of the amendment process. The founders did get it right. They gave us the amendment process to correct what we find needs correction.

>>> Oh, I would say, it appears they knew there might be more to say. Thankfully they gave us the amendment process and the women's vote is now a matter of record.

 

So, @MarAzul, since you clearly love the Constitution, and you rightly say that it says the right, "shall not be infringed," what do you do with the phrase "well-regulated"? And also "militia"? That boy in the school was not in any militia.

 

Then it just seems weird that you demand suggestions that don't infringe, when obviously the framers left open the option to amend, even with infringement. Now, whether you WANT that or not doesn't change whether it COULD be constitutional, if through the proper channels.

 

Those teenagers have every right to yell, and they should be yelling. At least people are starting to listen and talk now because of their yelling.

 

>>>Well, he doesn't want to talk about an amendment. He said he wants the states to infringe.

>>> This part, I do not know what you are referring to.

 

Oh I agree. I was just trying to point out the stark contrast and how seemingly far off we are from any real action of the consensus.

 

Ah, the Michael Moore defense. See, it makes sense because the second ammendment was a product of the 1700s, and so were muskets. The Natives really lose in this scenario, they only get tomahawks.

 

the joke was the fringe on his jacket....don't know how you get Michael Moore from that

 

Not fair at all. I think you bend it to your conservative whims.

However, I do think time and advancements need to be considered as well. Firearms today are not the same as firearms in 1787.

 

Just so you understand I’m not in support of the Federal govt banning guns. I’d like them to ban ancillary devises, put money towards mental health, provide a robust background check system and make sure those who pose a threat to the population are restricted. I think the Feds could also require tight regulations on ammunition. But I’d like states th pass more restrictive gun bans, age limits, firearm quantity limits.

But here’s the kicker, it doesn’t matter what you or I want or believe. The tide is changing. It may result in an amendment if the SC ends up siding with you, but one way of another guns are going to be much more tightly regulated soon. It might not be this tragedy that moves the needle the rest of the way, but as long as guns are so ubiquitous more tragedies will follow and the general population is getting fed up.

The 2nd amendment has been a single issue voting topic for about 5-10% of the right for some time, and that’s been enough to really fortify the rights position amongst politicians and get them to vote accordingly. Well, there is now a growing number of people, many Republicans included who are going to start making firearm restrictions a single issue topic on the other side, and as that side increases and your side decreases you will see politicians, even Republican ones acquiescing to the new voting block.

To quote good ol Bob Dylan “the times they are a changing”

 

So you do want to see the right infringed. Just lack the honesty to admit it.

 

No - you misinterpret- no rights are being infringed by state regulations. That what 8 of the 9 justices believe.