General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

66. It doesn't matter what they think.

Tue May 27, 2014, 04:38 PM

May 2014

They feared the economic devastation it would cause their society (they chose poorly) and they feared a violent backlash (because they chose poorly) but their opinion didn't make it a constitution or human right.

They also rebelled against the right of self-governance and representative government because they seceded after Lincoln was elected knowing full well he would -- via constitutional means -- advance the cause of abolition. Yes, they wanted to maintain slavery but they were not fighting for a right found either in nature or the constitution.

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