General Discussion

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)

23. People already have different rights depending on where they live

Tue May 27, 2014, 03:47 PM

May 2014

For example, people living in rural areas might be allowed to own livestock, but not within urban areas.

If you don't want to live in an area that bans firearms, then don't live in an area that bans firearms. There would still be plenty of areas in the United States where you could own firearms.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We need to have a serious national debate about the 2nd Amendment [View all] Hugabear May 2014 OP

Good luck with that. Indydem May 2014 #1

We don't need to remove the 2nd Amendment. Just amend it. Hugabear May 2014 #2

We don't even need to amend it. We just need a SCOTUS that will interpret it stranger81 May 2014 #114

It goes beyond the supreme court davidn3600 May 2014 #148

That is already happening in upstate NY. Upstate LEO's have refused to enforce NY's SAFE Act. badtoworse May 2014 #152

The 2A is not stopping gun control hack89 May 2014 #155

This message was self-deleted by its author closeupready May 2014 #3

The 2A is not stopping gun control hack89 May 2014 #4

True it's not the Second Amendment it's not having enough votes. hollowdweller May 2014 #112

Step 1: Elect a huge majority of Democrats to Congress. MineralMan May 2014 #5

Any dem majority large enough to pass gun control hollowdweller May 2014 #113

So, you don't think electing large Democratic MineralMan May 2014 #119

Think it's a great idea. hollowdweller May 2014 #141

Be honest. You don't want debate or discussion. beevul May 2014 #6

Seems like you don't want a debate or discussion either Hugabear May 2014 #7

Would you be ok with that standard for other rights? Lee-Lee May 2014 #8

Last I checked, nobody ever died from a drive-by speech Hugabear May 2014 #22

It's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if the theater has a fire. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #45

And so clearly we have no problem..... daleanime May 2014 #58

That makes no sense. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #62

Then at least we feel the same about that... daleanime May 2014 #94

No. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #95

30 people a day dead last year..... daleanime May 2014 #97

If I understand your premise correctly -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #99

but not for you.... daleanime May 2014 #101

Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is people dying before reaching a natural death. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #104

And muddier still.... daleanime May 2014 #117

You assert gun violence is a problem. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #136

And now it so muddy... daleanime May 2014 #138

Lots of things kill 30 -- or more -- people a day. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #142

Save it for some one else, but let me tell you one thing.... daleanime May 2014 #150

Would you argue that gun violence is not a problem? Hugabear May 2014 #139

Define "problem." Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #143

Would you argue that alchohol and drug abuse is not a problem? Duckhunter935 May 2014 #151

And you'd be fine with localities that want none? beevul May 2014 #89

you forgot magazine capacity Duckhunter935 May 2014 #116

Right you are. Edited to add them too. beevul May 2014 #120

no problem Duckhunter935 May 2014 #122

The 2nd Amendment isn't going away anytime soon. You need to accept that. badtoworse May 2014 #9

Why? Where does this need to accept it come from? Why is it either desirable or necessary? (nt) stone space May 2014 #12

It's political reality. badtoworse May 2014 #18

Did you make the same arguement against working to pass an ERA? stone space May 2014 #21

The ERA is a great example of how hard it is to amend the constitution badtoworse May 2014 #27

Did you make the same arguement against working to pass an ERA? stone space May 2014 #31

I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other. badtoworse May 2014 #32

The arguement was made. I heard it many times. I tried not to let it discourage me. stone space May 2014 #52

Other countries have just as violent - if not more violent - culture Hugabear May 2014 #53

All the more reason to address the glorification of violence in our culture... badtoworse May 2014 #57

That's because we have more easy access to guns here. hollowdweller May 2014 #115

Wisconsin was one of the last states to pass CCW legislation, Jenoch May 2014 #72

That is good to hear. badtoworse May 2014 #75

Not Wisconsin YarnAddict May 2014 #80

That's good, but there are exceptions badtoworse May 2014 #82

True, but YarnAddict May 2014 #84

I don't lose sleep either. badtoworse May 2014 #85

SCOTUS can do this. And here's how: we get another Dem in the WH in 2016 for 8 years. CTyankee May 2014 #87

Who is it that you think is going to take a gun rights case... beevul May 2014 #91

But they won't know, because the justices will be new... CTyankee May 2014 #93

Right. Justices, like other politicians... beevul May 2014 #103

Well, there you are. This is what you have gotten. A Dem presidential candidate who CTyankee May 2014 #109

IF--and it's a HUGE if YarnAddict May 2014 #137

you underestimate the Americanpublic. I think they have seen what the gun lobby wants and what CTyankee May 2014 #145

If the voting public actually wanted YarnAddict May 2014 #146

I think we all know why, don't we...the NRA has locked up our Congress... CTyankee May 2014 #147

Madison, maybe, but never Wisconsin. forthemiddle May 2014 #134

I'm happy to be corrected badtoworse May 2014 #144

I agree. It's time to repeal it. stone space May 2014 #10

2/3 of states? Get real! nt Logical May 2014 #26

You need 3/4 of the states to approve an amendment badtoworse May 2014 #29

So what is stopping you? ... oldhippie May 2014 #11

Guns don't have rights. People do. Like the right not to be shot. (nt) stone space May 2014 #13

So you would be OK with .... oldhippie May 2014 #15

I don't even know what you mean by "different rights". stone space May 2014 #17

How about a right to self defense Lee-Lee May 2014 #20

Communities have a right to self-defense against guns, but the gundamentalist... stone space May 2014 #25

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #60

It doesn't look like you are capable of following a thought ..... oldhippie May 2014 #42

People already have different rights depending on where they live Hugabear May 2014 #23

The short answer is no. Civil rights don't work that way. badtoworse May 2014 #28

Guns do not have civil rights. (nt) stone space May 2014 #35

So what? The Bill of Rights protects the people by denying certain powers to the government. badtoworse May 2014 #40

Neither do printing presses. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #48

Oh horseshit. Hugabear May 2014 #36

Slavery was eliminated by a constitutional amendment badtoworse May 2014 #46

That's exactly the point of my OP Hugabear May 2014 #55

It would only take 13 states to block an amendment. badtoworse May 2014 #63

You can add Minnesota and Wisconsin to that list of states. Jenoch May 2014 #73

I'm sure there are many more badtoworse May 2014 #74

The idea of pushing for a change Jenoch May 2014 #78

Yup. You betcha. YarnAddict May 2014 #83

So go ahead and start your national debate ... oldhippie May 2014 #47

Slavery wasn't a civil right, it was a legal license. Slavery was a violation of civil rights. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #54

Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution Hugabear May 2014 #56

"Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution" Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #61

I think the former states of the Confederacy would beg to differ with that Hugabear May 2014 #64

It doesn't matter what they think. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #66

So if a city wanted to ban abortion hack89 May 2014 #34

And notice none of them will answer the question oldhippie May 2014 #37

Figures that gun-humpers would bring up non-sequitur examples Hugabear May 2014 #43

And with that ... oldhippie May 2014 #49

So who gets to decide which civil rights can be taken away and which can't? badtoworse May 2014 #71

So the states can ignore PARTS of the Bill of Rights but not others? hack89 May 2014 #76

I want to marry my gun FrodosPet May 2014 #125

You want to have a national debate yet call people 'gun-humpers'? You may wish kelly1mm May 2014 #128

He really isn't going to do anything ... oldhippie May 2014 #133

There is no right to own livestock ..... oldhippie May 2014 #39

No, because that would be denying someone based on skin color Hugabear May 2014 #59

The point is YarnAddict May 2014 #86

So much for understanding law and civil rights oldhippie May 2014 #90

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #33

So you think the only reason people arm themselves is to protect themselves from the Government? dilby May 2014 #14

Thank you for getting it. nt Lee-Lee May 2014 #16

There are other methods for self-defense Hugabear May 2014 #24

Her gun has never been used against her. dilby May 2014 #30

I'm pointing out what many studies have shown Hugabear May 2014 #38

The studies are pointless. dilby May 2014 #41

Actually pretty much all those studies have deep flaws Lee-Lee May 2014 #50

Holodecks is clearly the answer. Puzzledtraveller May 2014 #19

Since you've set the bar at repeal or amend -- then no. aikoaiko May 2014 #44

Good luck with that. Aristus May 2014 #51

Really.... Sassysdad May 2014 #67

Simply wanting the guns is a pretty good indicator. Aristus May 2014 #69

Ding ding ding... Sassysdad May 2014 #81

Don't need advanced degrees to see crazy a thousand miles away... IronGate May 2014 #124

I disagree. The "debate" has happened. The second might be the only amendment... Demo_Chris May 2014 #65

If not incorporated by the 14th Amendment treestar May 2014 #68

I thought McDonald did that. badtoworse May 2014 #70

The 2A has been incorporated. Nt hack89 May 2014 #77

There are cities that do that. YarnAddict May 2014 #79

Good luck with that, gun nuts would rather us all die than give up their first love. nt. Rex May 2014 #88

Wow.. Sassysdad May 2014 #92

We can't even get universal background checks. Union Scribe May 2014 #96

Don't forget about Harry Reid's role. Jenoch May 2014 #102

True. Union Scribe May 2014 #106

I believe a UBC law had a good chance of passing last year Jenoch May 2014 #111

What stopped that bill was it was very poorly written and thought out Lee-Lee May 2014 #110

Another few gun massacres Crunchy Frog May 2014 #98

The next time we have the senate we need to pack the courts mwrguy May 2014 #100

What if we can only vote for white people? Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #105

Did someone threaten your precious white privilege? mwrguy May 2014 #108

Huh.... Sassysdad May 2014 #123

I mean our 60 seat majority. mwrguy May 2014 #126

Leader Reid.. Sassysdad May 2014 #140

I can think of two interested parties who would welcome Jenoch May 2014 #107

What laws would have prevented this? Dwayne Hicks May 2014 #118

well, ok, let's just stop trying. NO CAN DO... CTyankee May 2014 #121

Yes that is the reality Dwayne Hicks May 2014 #127

Oh, I dunno...pick a place in the civilized world where they have fewer gun deaths than we do... CTyankee May 2014 #129

I never said we were Dwayne Hicks May 2014 #130

Why n ot look at countries in the world where the populace likes having their guns and CTyankee May 2014 #153

Agreed. 2A should be repealed, but won't. Time to abandon USA. Emigrate! Dems to Win May 2014 #131

Did you see what happened with that British host... flashbang May 2014 #132

I don't think we need a constitutional amendment. Just intelligent gun regulations. Vattel May 2014 #135

Something I posted on my FB page. No responses, so far. lol Booster May 2014 #149

The second amendment could go away and we'd be exactly where we are Recursion May 2014 #154

Wherein? The media? Hahahaha! Congress? Guffaw! Taking it to the streets? Better be armed! WinkyDink May 2014 #156