Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

New United States Constitution

bfochtman14
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 12:36:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The United States Constitution is not holding up very well with modern day issues and corrupt politicians. In my opinion I believe we need a completely new Constitution and would like to see it happen in my lifetime.

If the United States was to seek a new Constitution I think it should be drafted in the same way the Republic of Iceland did for their new Constitution.

So I'd like to hear what you think should be included in this new Constitution, what should be taken out, or anything else, if it were to happen.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 12:57:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Liberal Constitution of the United People's Democracy of America
Written by well educated liberal atheists

Article 1.
Section 1: Barack Obama, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx are to be worshipped.
Section 2: All people must become gay. All men must become women and all women must become men.
Section 3: All Christians are to be beheaded because their ancestors several centuries ago engaged in Crusades and religious wars.
Section 4: All white people are to be enslaved by black people because 150 years ago white people held black people as slaves.

Article 2.
Section 1: All truth is relative. Therefore, if somebody says that murder is all right then no one should stop him from murdering people. We have the right to murder people just because.

Etcetera etcetera
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 1:04:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 12:57:46 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
The Liberal Constitution of the United People's Democracy of America
Written by well educated liberal atheists

Article 1.
Section 1: Barack Obama, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx are to be worshipped.
Section 2: All people must become gay. All men must become women and all women must become men.
Section 3: All Christians are to be beheaded because their ancestors several centuries ago engaged in Crusades and religious wars.
Section 4: All white people are to be enslaved by black people because 150 years ago white people held black people as slaves.

Article 2.
Section 1: All truth is relative. Therefore, if somebody says that murder is all right then no one should stop him from murdering people. We have the right to murder people just because.

Etcetera etcetera

1) Obama is basically center right, so no.
2) Article 1 section 2 is a contradiction of itself.
3) That reduces our slave labour force too much.
4) Article 1 section 4 contradicts article 1 section 3.
5) While all truth is relative, the Constitution needs to provide a government capable of securing its people. We need no murderous anarchy, and if we did, we wouldn't need a Constitution.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 1:30:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Most of our Constitution could be fixed with minor tweaks. For example, changing the wording of the Eighth Amendment from "cruel and unusual punishment" to "excessive punishment" being prohibited would make a big difference. The Eighth Amendment says "excessive bail" and "excessive fines" are prohibited, but uses this weird phrasing for punishment. As a result, the Supreme Court has refused to engage in a proportionality review of most sentences. Life in jail for trafficking a couple pounds of cocaine has been held not be a cruel and unusual punishment. But it is absurd.

Also, an amendment requiring public financing of elections (and prohibiting private financing).

Abolish the bicameral legislature. Get rid of the Senate. Small states don't deserve the same voting power as much more populous states (when setting national policies).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 1:39:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 1:30:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Most of our Constitution could be fixed with minor tweaks. For example, changing the wording of the Eighth Amendment from "cruel and unusual punishment" to "excessive punishment" being prohibited would make a big difference. The Eighth Amendment says "excessive bail" and "excessive fines" are prohibited, but uses this weird phrasing for punishment. As a result, the Supreme Court has refused to engage in a proportionality review of most sentences. Life in jail for trafficking a couple pounds of cocaine has been held not be a cruel and unusual punishment. But it is absurd.

lol... cocaine isn't sold in pounds, dude. Nose candy is done on the metic system.

Also, an amendment requiring public financing of elections (and prohibiting private financing).

That's an interesting idea. Perhaps at some point we could debate that.

Abolish the bicameral legislature. Get rid of the Senate. Small states don't deserve the same voting power as much more populous states (when setting national policies).

That's an interesting idea to. But I like the first one better, as a debate resolution.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 1:42:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 1:39:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:30:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Most of our Constitution could be fixed with minor tweaks. For example, changing the wording of the Eighth Amendment from "cruel and unusual punishment" to "excessive punishment" being prohibited would make a big difference. The Eighth Amendment says "excessive bail" and "excessive fines" are prohibited, but uses this weird phrasing for punishment. As a result, the Supreme Court has refused to engage in a proportionality review of most sentences. Life in jail for trafficking a couple pounds of cocaine has been held not be a cruel and unusual punishment. But it is absurd.

lol... cocaine isn't sold in pounds, dude. Nose candy is done on the metic system.

Also, an amendment requiring public financing of elections (and prohibiting private financing).

That's an interesting idea. Perhaps at some point we could debate that.

Abolish the bicameral legislature. Get rid of the Senate. Small states don't deserve the same voting power as much more populous states (when setting national policies).

That's an interesting idea to. But I like the first one better, as a debate resolution.

We need someone to keep a list of potential topics for us -- a DDO secretary.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 1:43:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Like Bluesteel said, the entire thing does not need to be scratched. Its a work of genius in my opinion, but if necessary there could be minor tweaks via amendments.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 1:49:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 1:42:53 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:39:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:30:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Most of our Constitution could be fixed with minor tweaks. For example, changing the wording of the Eighth Amendment from "cruel and unusual punishment" to "excessive punishment" being prohibited would make a big difference. The Eighth Amendment says "excessive bail" and "excessive fines" are prohibited, but uses this weird phrasing for punishment. As a result, the Supreme Court has refused to engage in a proportionality review of most sentences. Life in jail for trafficking a couple pounds of cocaine has been held not be a cruel and unusual punishment. But it is absurd.

lol... cocaine isn't sold in pounds, dude. Nose candy is done on the metic system.

Also, an amendment requiring public financing of elections (and prohibiting private financing).

That's an interesting idea. Perhaps at some point we could debate that.

Abolish the bicameral legislature. Get rid of the Senate. Small states don't deserve the same voting power as much more populous states (when setting national policies).

That's an interesting idea to. But I like the first one better, as a debate resolution.

We need someone to keep a list of potential topics for us -- a DDO secretary.

Later this summer, let's just do the campaign finance thing. I don't have the time to do a really detailed and complicated debate right now, but that's an issue that always interests me -and so far more than military spending.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 1:53:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 1:49:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:42:53 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:39:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:30:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Most of our Constitution could be fixed with minor tweaks. For example, changing the wording of the Eighth Amendment from "cruel and unusual punishment" to "excessive punishment" being prohibited would make a big difference. The Eighth Amendment says "excessive bail" and "excessive fines" are prohibited, but uses this weird phrasing for punishment. As a result, the Supreme Court has refused to engage in a proportionality review of most sentences. Life in jail for trafficking a couple pounds of cocaine has been held not be a cruel and unusual punishment. But it is absurd.

lol... cocaine isn't sold in pounds, dude. Nose candy is done on the metic system.

Also, an amendment requiring public financing of elections (and prohibiting private financing).

That's an interesting idea. Perhaps at some point we could debate that.

Abolish the bicameral legislature. Get rid of the Senate. Small states don't deserve the same voting power as much more populous states (when setting national policies).

That's an interesting idea to. But I like the first one better, as a debate resolution.

We need someone to keep a list of potential topics for us -- a DDO secretary.

Later this summer, let's just do the campaign finance thing. I don't have the time to do a really detailed and complicated debate right now, but that's an issue that always interests me -and so far more than military spending.

k, sounds good. It definitely sounds less research intensive than the military one.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 2:01:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 1:53:01 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:49:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:42:53 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:39:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:30:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Most of our Constitution could be fixed with minor tweaks. For example, changing the wording of the Eighth Amendment from "cruel and unusual punishment" to "excessive punishment" being prohibited would make a big difference. The Eighth Amendment says "excessive bail" and "excessive fines" are prohibited, but uses this weird phrasing for punishment. As a result, the Supreme Court has refused to engage in a proportionality review of most sentences. Life in jail for trafficking a couple pounds of cocaine has been held not be a cruel and unusual punishment. But it is absurd.

lol... cocaine isn't sold in pounds, dude. Nose candy is done on the metic system.

Also, an amendment requiring public financing of elections (and prohibiting private financing).

That's an interesting idea. Perhaps at some point we could debate that.

Abolish the bicameral legislature. Get rid of the Senate. Small states don't deserve the same voting power as much more populous states (when setting national policies).

That's an interesting idea to. But I like the first one better, as a debate resolution.

We need someone to keep a list of potential topics for us -- a DDO secretary.

Later this summer, let's just do the campaign finance thing. I don't have the time to do a really detailed and complicated debate right now, but that's an issue that always interests me -and so far more than military spending.

k, sounds good. It definitely sounds less research intensive than the military one.

Totally, which is why I'm less apprehensive about taking it as well.
Tsar of DDO
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 6:32:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 1:04:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/20/2014 12:57:46 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
The Liberal Constitution of the United People's Democracy of America
Written by well educated liberal atheists

Article 1.
Section 1: Barack Obama, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx are to be worshipped.
Section 2: All people must become gay. All men must become women and all women must become men.
Section 3: All Christians are to be beheaded because their ancestors several centuries ago engaged in Crusades and religious wars.
Section 4: All white people are to be enslaved by black people because 150 years ago white people held black people as slaves.

Article 2.
Section 1: All truth is relative. Therefore, if somebody says that murder is all right then no one should stop him from murdering people. We have the right to murder people just because.

Etcetera etcetera

1) Obama is basically center right, so no.
2) Article 1 section 2 is a contradiction of itself.
3) That reduces our slave labour force too much.
4) Article 1 section 4 contradicts article 1 section 3.
5) While all truth is relative, the Constitution needs to provide a government capable of securing its people. We need no murderous anarchy, and if we did, we wouldn't need a Constitution.

I was just trolling, lol. But on a more serious note, why the heck would you consider Obama to be Right Wing?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 8:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 6:32:07 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:04:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/20/2014 12:57:46 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
The Liberal Constitution of the United People's Democracy of America
Written by well educated liberal atheists

Article 1.
Section 1: Barack Obama, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx are to be worshipped.
Section 2: All people must become gay. All men must become women and all women must become men.
Section 3: All Christians are to be beheaded because their ancestors several centuries ago engaged in Crusades and religious wars.
Section 4: All white people are to be enslaved by black people because 150 years ago white people held black people as slaves.

Article 2.
Section 1: All truth is relative. Therefore, if somebody says that murder is all right then no one should stop him from murdering people. We have the right to murder people just because.

Etcetera etcetera

1) Obama is basically center right, so no.
2) Article 1 section 2 is a contradiction of itself.
3) That reduces our slave labour force too much.
4) Article 1 section 4 contradicts article 1 section 3.
5) While all truth is relative, the Constitution needs to provide a government capable of securing its people. We need no murderous anarchy, and if we did, we wouldn't need a Constitution.

I was just trolling, lol. But on a more serious note, why the heck would you consider Obama to be Right Wing?

I was too.
Though I do see Obama as more center-right for basically continuing all of Bush's policies.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:18:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 8:14:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/20/2014 6:32:07 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/20/2014 1:04:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/20/2014 12:57:46 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
The Liberal Constitution of the United People's Democracy of America
Written by well educated liberal atheists

Article 1.
Section 1: Barack Obama, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx are to be worshipped.
Section 2: All people must become gay. All men must become women and all women must become men.
Section 3: All Christians are to be beheaded because their ancestors several centuries ago engaged in Crusades and religious wars.
Section 4: All white people are to be enslaved by black people because 150 years ago white people held black people as slaves.

Article 2.
Section 1: All truth is relative. Therefore, if somebody says that murder is all right then no one should stop him from murdering people. We have the right to murder people just because.

Etcetera etcetera

1) Obama is basically center right, so no.
2) Article 1 section 2 is a contradiction of itself.
3) That reduces our slave labour force too much.
4) Article 1 section 4 contradicts article 1 section 3.
5) While all truth is relative, the Constitution needs to provide a government capable of securing its people. We need no murderous anarchy, and if we did, we wouldn't need a Constitution.

I was just trolling, lol. But on a more serious note, why the heck would you consider Obama to be Right Wing?

I was too.
Though I do see Obama as more center-right for basically continuing all of Bush's policies.

What makes you think Bush's policies were Right Wing? Besides the stuff like abortion and gay marriage, that is.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:20:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The only thing I would really change, as it is now, is the Second Amendment. I would just erase it, and that would be the end of gun rights.
Tsar of DDO
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:23:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 6:20:18 PM, YYW wrote:
The only thing I would really change, as it is now, is the Second Amendment. I would just erase it, and that would be the end of gun rights.

And then the whole United States would be like Chicago. Woohoo! Sounds awsum!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:40:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 6:23:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/21/2014 6:20:18 PM, YYW wrote:
The only thing I would really change, as it is now, is the Second Amendment. I would just erase it, and that would be the end of gun rights.

And then the whole United States would be like Chicago. Woohoo! Sounds awsum!

Because then only criminals would have guns? Conservatives, and the NRA (which is composed of conservatives) love to toss that argument around.

Owning guns is a privilege, not a right. When Washington said that guns were the people's liberty's teeth, he was saying that in reference to the unique situation that the colonists fought for; they were then Englishmen fighting for the rights of Englishmen and guns were a necessary means to that end. But later, the framers recognized that, in the contemporary state of affairs that the the fledgling assembly of states faced, it could be necessary to defend the area once more from foreign incursion and state militias were the most easily mobilized.

There was not a military which was the strongest in the world, and there were very real threats which had to be prepared for. But now, there is no reason to think that it would be necessary to call upon state militias to defend the several states from a Lobsterback incursion. But, there is a very real threat that the United States has to deal with and it results in hundreds of deaths every year: gun violence. Elizabeth Warren made the keen and astute observation that if a pathogen were killing our kids at the rate that guns are, the NIH and every available resource at our nation's disposal would be committed to finding a cure. Yet with guns? People decry their idiotic right to "stand their ground."

Where owning guns presents an imminent threat to public health, to the common good, to collective security and to the wellbeing of our people, it cannot be said that gun rights trump the general welfare. That is not to say that I am opposed to people with military training owning guns, but I am absolutely opposed to private citizens being able to own any firearm other than that which can reasonably be used for hunting. So, rifles and shotguns (which have at least 18 inch barrels) are ok. Pistols which kill children by the scores in accidents every year have no place in our society other than in the hands of military and our law enforcement. I think allowing only rifles and shotguns is a reasonable compromise. You can keep your barbaric blood sport, but if you bring one of them into a city, you should be subject to astronomically high fines.

I also think that one way to remediate this problem would be to impose strict liability for any firearm accident on gun owners. What that means is that without regard to whether a gun went off intentionally or not, whether it was an accident or not, etc. that if you want to own a gun, you are absolutely going to face civil liability (and potentially also criminal liability for reckless negligence) for any damage that your gun causes. So, if you're a gun owner and it accidentally discharges while you're removing it from your car and kills someone, then the victims family can sue you for everything you're worth. If your kid gets ahold of it and accidentally kills someone with it -you're going to prison for a very long time. If your kid is a psychopath like Adam Lanza and does what he did at that elementary school, you're not only going to prison for a very long time, the victims should have a right to file a class action law suit against you.

That might even create jobs, because it's going to force gun owners to buy accident insurance. I think it should cost something along the lines of what medical malpractice insurance does, and I think the penalty for having an unregistered gun should be a minimum of 25 years in a state prison, and 30 years in a federal prison if you smuggle your guns across state lines. Life in prison for illegally selling guns.
Tsar of DDO
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:54:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 6:40:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2014 6:23:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/21/2014 6:20:18 PM, YYW wrote:
The only thing I would really change, as it is now, is the Second Amendment. I would just erase it, and that would be the end of gun rights.

And then the whole United States would be like Chicago. Woohoo! Sounds awsum!

Because then only criminals would have guns? Conservatives, and the NRA (which is composed of conservatives) love to toss that argument around.

The same applies to Liberals who say there would be no crime if no civilians had guns.

Owning guns is a privilege, not a right. When Washington said that guns were the people's liberty's teeth, he was saying that in reference to the unique situation that the colonists fought for; they were then Englishmen fighting for the rights of Englishmen and guns were a necessary means to that end. But later, the framers recognized that, in the contemporary state of affairs that the the fledgling assembly of states faced, it could be necessary to defend the area once more from foreign incursion and state militias were the most easily mobilized.

I'm sure that the Founding Fathers would still want civilians to own guns.

There was not a military which was the strongest in the world, and there were very real threats which had to be prepared for. But now, there is no reason to think that it would be necessary to call upon state militias to defend the several states from a Lobsterback incursion. But, there is a very real threat that the United States has to deal with and it results in hundreds of deaths every year: gun violence. Elizabeth Warren made the keen and astute observation that if a pathogen were killing our kids at the rate that guns are, the NIH and every available resource at our nation's disposal would be committed to finding a cure. Yet with guns? People decry their idiotic right to "stand their ground."

You can't use pathogens to defend yourself against criminals either.

Where owning guns presents an imminent threat to public health, to the common good, to collective security and to the wellbeing of our people, it cannot be said that gun rights trump the general welfare. That is not to say that I am opposed to people with military training owning guns, but I am absolutely opposed to private citizens being able to own any firearm other than that which can reasonably be used for hunting. So, rifles and shotguns (which have at least 18 inch barrels) are ok. Pistols which kill children by the scores in accidents every year have no place in our society other than in the hands of military and our law enforcement. I think allowing only rifles and shotguns is a reasonable compromise. You can keep your barbaric blood sport, but if you bring one of them into a city, you should be subject to astronomically high fines.

The solution to gun violence is neither to take away the guns or to hand out more guns. The solution is to get people to be responsible with the guns that we already have. You are right to an extent; nations like Switzerland, which have both a lot of guns and mandatory military service, have a very low crime rate. However, it is definitely a stretch to say that nobody who hasn't been in the army should own a gun. There are plenty of people I know who are responsible gun owners and have never been in the army.
Liberty was meant for those who will not abuse Liberty. This applies to guns, alcohol, sex, etc. I would not be opposed to programs that would teach people gun safety.

I also think that one way to remediate this problem would be to impose strict liability for any firearm accident on gun owners. What that means is that without regard to whether a gun went off intentionally or not, whether it was an accident or not, etc. that if you want to own a gun, you are absolutely going to face civil liability (and potentially also criminal liability for reckless negligence) for any damage that your gun causes. So, if you're a gun owner and it accidentally discharges while you're removing it from your car and kills someone, then the victims family can sue you for everything you're worth. If your kid gets ahold of it and accidentally kills someone with it -you're going to prison for a very long time. If your kid is a psychopath like Adam Lanza and does what he did at that elementary school, you're not only going to prison for a very long time, the victims should have a right to file a class action law suit against you.


That might even create jobs, because it's going to force gun owners to buy accident insurance. I think it should cost something along the lines of what medical malpractice insurance does, and I think the penalty for having an unregistered gun should be a minimum of 25 years in a state prison, and 30 years in a federal prison if you smuggle your guns across state lines. Life in prison for illegally selling guns.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:01:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 6:54:18 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/21/2014 6:40:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2014 6:23:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/21/2014 6:20:18 PM, YYW wrote:
The only thing I would really change, as it is now, is the Second Amendment. I would just erase it, and that would be the end of gun rights.

And then the whole United States would be like Chicago. Woohoo! Sounds awsum!

Because then only criminals would have guns? Conservatives, and the NRA (which is composed of conservatives) love to toss that argument around.

The same applies to Liberals who say there would be no crime if no civilians had guns.

Owning guns is a privilege, not a right. When Washington said that guns were the people's liberty's teeth, he was saying that in reference to the unique situation that the colonists fought for; they were then Englishmen fighting for the rights of Englishmen and guns were a necessary means to that end. But later, the framers recognized that, in the contemporary state of affairs that the the fledgling assembly of states faced, it could be necessary to defend the area once more from foreign incursion and state militias were the most easily mobilized.

I'm sure that the Founding Fathers would still want civilians to own guns.

Glenn Beck would too; that doesn't make it the case -and even if it was (which there are compelling reasons to think otherwise), that doesn't mean that they'd be right. We are not a democracy of the dead; it is the living (or, those of us who have been fortunate enough not to be killed by guns) who are obliged to make policy choices, not our venerated predecessors.

There was not a military which was the strongest in the world, and there were very real threats which had to be prepared for. But now, there is no reason to think that it would be necessary to call upon state militias to defend the several states from a Lobsterback incursion. But, there is a very real threat that the United States has to deal with and it results in hundreds of deaths every year: gun violence. Elizabeth Warren made the keen and astute observation that if a pathogen were killing our kids at the rate that guns are, the NIH and every available resource at our nation's disposal would be committed to finding a cure. Yet with guns? People decry their idiotic right to "stand their ground."

You can't use pathogens to defend yourself against criminals either.

If you think that the statement you just made has any substantive bearing on what I said, either you misunderstood what I said or it went over your head.

Where owning guns presents an imminent threat to public health, to the common good, to collective security and to the wellbeing of our people, it cannot be said that gun rights trump the general welfare. That is not to say that I am opposed to people with military training owning guns, but I am absolutely opposed to private citizens being able to own any firearm other than that which can reasonably be used for hunting. So, rifles and shotguns (which have at least 18 inch barrels) are ok. Pistols which kill children by the scores in accidents every year have no place in our society other than in the hands of military and our law enforcement. I think allowing only rifles and shotguns is a reasonable compromise. You can keep your barbaric blood sport, but if you bring one of them into a city, you should be subject to astronomically high fines.

The solution to gun violence is neither to take away the guns or to hand out more guns. The solution is to get people to be responsible with the guns that we already have. You are right to an extent; nations like Switzerland,

Switzerland has a draft, and almost every male citizen over the age of 23 has received rigorous military training. If you want to bring back the draft then my opposition to gun rights will be moot.

which have both a lot of guns and mandatory military service, have a very low crime rate. However, it is definitely a stretch to say that nobody who hasn't been in the army should own a gun. There are plenty of people I know who are responsible gun owners and have never been in the army.

Lovely. If they're so responsible, then it shouldn't be a problem to hold them civilly and criminally liable for any damage that their guns cause. Let's have incredibly high fines for unregistered guns (if you're a law abiding citizen, you're going to register your guns, right?). Let's have compulsory classes which are comprehensive in their curriculum and last at least six months on gun safety before any civilian can be allowed to own a gun and let's require gun owners to buy gun ownership insurance to ensure that anyone victimized by their negligence has some kind of remedy. Let's put anyone who owns a gun without insurance in prison for a very long time. This is how we as a society can be "responsible" with guns.

Liberty was meant for those who will not abuse Liberty. This applies to guns, alcohol, sex, etc. I would not be opposed to programs that would teach people gun safety.

Sure.

I also think that one way to remediate this problem would be to impose strict liability for any firearm accident on gun owners. What that means is that without regard to whether a gun went off intentionally or not, whether it was an accident or not, etc. that if you want to own a gun, you are absolutely going to face civil liability (and potentially also criminal liability for reckless negligence) for any damage that your gun causes. So, if you're a gun owner and it accidentally discharges while you're removing it from your car and kills someone, then the victims family can sue you for everything you're worth. If your kid gets ahold of it and accidentally kills someone with it -you're going to prison for a very long time. If your kid is a psychopath like Adam Lanza and does what he did at that elementary school, you're not only going to prison for a very long time, the victims should have a right to file a class action law suit against you.


That might even create jobs, because it's going to force gun owners to buy accident insurance. I think it should cost something along the lines of what medical malpractice insurance does, and I think the penalty for having an unregistered gun should be a minimum of 25 years in a state prison, and 30 years in a federal prison if you smuggle your guns across state lines. Life in prison for illegally selling guns.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:09:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because ultimately, this is my logic...

Adam Lanza's mother (and father, if he was in the picture... but I think not) should be in prison right now for reckless negligence. This is because failing to secure a gun from any potential abuser of it is reckless negligence, by any reasonable interpretation of the meaning of that phrase. She brought guns into the house and failed to secure them in such a way that would preclude her psychotic son from killing elementary school kids. She should have been required to buy gun ownership insurance, and the families who lost people to her psychotic son should be able to sue her for damages.

The reason for this solution is because I'm sick of Republicans and the NRA talking about rights while ignoring the responsibility that comes with them. If you're going to own a gun, you have a responsibility to ensure that it's secure. Holding people civilly AND criminally liable for ANY damage their guns cause to people or their property is probably the best and only way to reduce the kinds of tragedies associated with gun violence.

Oh, and this means that every gang-banger who carries a gun without insurance can be locked up for at least 15 years. That would fix the Chicago in a hurry.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:11:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 7:09:01 PM, YYW wrote:
Because ultimately, this is my logic...

Adam Lanza's mother (and father, if he was in the picture... but I think not) should be in prison right now for reckless negligence. This is because failing to secure a gun from any potential abuser of it is reckless negligence, by any reasonable interpretation of the meaning of that phrase. She brought guns into the house and failed to secure them in such a way that would preclude her psychotic son from killing elementary school kids. She should have been required to buy gun ownership insurance, and the families who lost people to her psychotic son should be able to sue her for damages.

The reason for this solution is because I'm sick of Republicans and the NRA talking about rights while ignoring the responsibility that comes with them. If you're going to own a gun, you have a responsibility to ensure that it's secure. Holding people civilly AND criminally liable for ANY damage their guns cause to people or their property is probably the best and only way to reduce the kinds of tragedies associated with gun violence.

Oh, and this means that every gang-banger who carries a gun without insurance can be locked up for at least 15 years. That would fix the Chicago* in a hurry.

*the many problems in Chicagoland
Tsar of DDO