Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » The US Constitution is infamous. 1st and 2nd amendments specifically*. Do you have anything infamous in your Constitution? What?
RosieG

The US Constitution is infamous. 1st and 2nd amendments specifically*. Do you have anything infamous in your Constitution? What?

First and Second amendments relate to guns and free speech. Guns come up all the time after mass murderers massacre Americans but all there is talk. Nothing ever changes. The Sandy Hook tragedy where 20 children were massacred wasn't enough to move them to do anything. I know. Go figger! And free speech comes up when a prez wants to undermine the right of a person to protest peacefully as GUARANTEED in the US Constitution. Otherwise he doesn't give a rat's a** about it and knows even less than a rat about the contents.

Posted - October 10, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 17319
    Yes, our Head of State is a foreigner. It will probably change but not soon - an amendment to the Australian Constitution can only come about via a referendum, and those are notorious for failing.

    Incidentally your first Amendment is fine. It's the second that makes no sense.
      October 10, 2017 7:33 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Of course I agree with thee. We've had this discussion a zillion times over the years m'dear. It made sense when The Constitution was written. Sort of.  What were the weapons that were available then? Muskets. I'm pretty sure the folks involved in writing about the right to  bear arms didn't conceive of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons nor did they think that folks would have a zillion guns. Being able to protect yourself is fine. Owning a zillion weapons in order to slaughter people doesn't seem so fine to me. Many folks don't own guns, our family among them. One son has a rifle or two but he is a hunter. He doesn't have a zillion handguns or oozies or AK47's or whatever the he** is the gun du jour that can do the most damage. I think the Constitution framers would be APPALLED that after every gun-related MASSACRE gun sales go way up in the US! Folks rush out to buy more guns because they fear someone will come and confiscate them so they will have a zillion guns to kill them with (I know..dangling preposition but I don't care!) It's infuriating but it is what it is. SIGH. Thank you for your reply Sbf and Happy Sunday! :)
      October 22, 2017 2:55 AM MDT
    0

  • 17319
    I once owned a little .22 rifle. I hunted rabbits, feral cats and foxes (useless as an antipersonnel weapon, due the low muzzle velocity and small calibre - a human skull or rib will stop a standard .22 bullet). I handed it in when the gun laws changed, I hardly ever hunted by then anyway.
      October 22, 2017 8:56 AM MDT
    1

  • 35560
    They took your .22? That is crazy. Nothing wrong with a .22
      October 22, 2017 9:09 AM MDT
    1

  • 17319
    They didn't "take" it exactly - just made it fiendishly expensive to reregister. Hunting rifles with small calibre and no automatic or semiautomatic function are still legal,  but all firearms registration costs went through the roof. All firearms in Australia must be registered and the owners licensed.
      October 22, 2017 8:07 PM MDT
    0

  • 35560
    A tactic that the anti 2nd amendment folks have tried here as well. On state passed a law saying you had to have accident insurance on your firearms.  A product that did not exist...I believe the courts threw it out. 
      October 23, 2017 4:23 AM MDT
    0

  • 17319
    Down here, it worked. No mass shootings in 21 years. I'll take our guns laws thanks. Over there you seem to have a mass shooting weekly, a massacre twice a year.
      October 23, 2017 3:53 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500
    Now if you could only figure out how to stop mass murders by arson, edged objects and blunt objects . . . 

    And by the way, it depends on your "definition" of mass shooting. By USA legal standards you've had quite a few since your ban went into effect. I guess if you can't really solve the problem then lie about it.
      October 24, 2017 12:01 AM MDT
    1

  • 2500
    A human skull or rib will stop a ".22 bullet"? (I assume that you mean a .22 rim-fire weapon)

    If either were still around you might want to check with Jim Brady about the .22's ability to penetrate a human skull. Or check with President Ronald Reagan about that penetration of a human rib thing. Prompt medical treatment is what saved both their lives, not the impotence of the .22 rim-fire round when fired from a short-barreled handgun.

    The .22 rim-fire was long a favorite to use to dispatch animals being butchered on the old farmstead too. Even a .22 short would do the trick at reasonable close range. Back in my hunting days I usually carried a .22 revolver sporting long-rifle cartridges as well as the 12-gauge shotgun when I was out for small game like rabbits and squirrels. So no, the .22 can be quite deadly, just like any other firearm. In fact, there are now .22-caliber pellet guns that pack the same wallop as their powder-burning cousins. This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at October 24, 2017 5:11 AM MDT
      October 23, 2017 8:01 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Australia had a buy-back program right? Did you get market value in return for turning in your gun Sbf? Thank you for your reply and Happy Wednesday! :)
      October 25, 2017 6:01 AM MDT
    0

  • 2500

    What would be the "fair market value" in a market where legal possession is virtually non-existent?  I'm thinking close to 0 unless sold on the black market.
      October 25, 2017 2:18 PM MDT
    0

  • 6023

    Quote: (useless as an antipersonnel weapon, due the low muzzle velocity and small calibre - a human skull or rib will stop a standard .22 bullet)

    Not quite true.  The IRA used small caliber pistols (.22 and .25) for decades to kill.  You just have to be a lot closer than you do with a hunting round.  Since most shootings are within 20 feet (per FBI statistics), a .22 is as lethal as a larger round.

      October 25, 2017 2:02 PM MDT
    1

  • 35560
    I geuss you have never heard of the following:

     Belton flintlock developed during the revolutionary war that could fire 20 or so rounds in 5 seconds with one pull of the finger.

    Girandoni rifle, where a 22 high capacity round magazine accurately could be fired within 30 seconds created during the revolutionary war which was later used by Thomas Jefferson to famously outfit the lewis and clark expedition.

    Puckle gun early gatling gun created 60 years before the revolutionry war.

    The Pepper box revolvers some could hold over 20 rounds and were developed hundreds of years before the founding fathers.




      October 22, 2017 9:30 AM MDT
    1

  • 6098
    Honey if we didn't have Free Speech do you think you would be allowed to post what you do on here?

    As far as guns - if people are not allowed to have guns then that means only the government can have them. 

    Otherwise we would have a totalitarian state. 
      October 22, 2017 9:15 AM MDT
    3

  • 17319
    Australia is not a totalitarian state (government has changed hands three times since gun laws were tightened in 1996). As for fighting the government - you realise that the government has drones, tanks and F-119's, right? What use are assault rifles against that?
      October 22, 2017 8:19 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500

    Yeah! How did the people of the Soviet Union manage to shut down the Communists with all their tanks and fighter jets?

    By the way, how do those weapons work in places like heavy woods and tall city canyons, especially when those very cities are populated by the very government that would turn them against the very citizens that they're supposed to be serving? And then who's actually going to use those weapons against their own citizens? The tank driver may be ordered to run over his or her parents house. 

    No, I think you're full of your own organic fertilizer . . . 
      October 24, 2017 1:48 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500

    So you think that the US Constitution is a BAD thing? The Constitution of the country that graciously provided your ethnic group, and by extension you, safe haven from political persecution and probable death in face of the Armenian Christian genocide at the hand of the disintegrating Ottoman Empire is bad? Not you. of course, but I have to wonder what kind of twisted ingrate would think such a thing?

      October 22, 2017 3:28 PM MDT
    0

  • Always remember, the 1st Amendment gives you the right to speak out against the 1st Amendment. Also remember if the 1st Amendment wasn't there, you would have been in prison long ago. Now, 2nd Amendment is twofold. Confusion regarding the Second Amendment comes from the fact that it addresses two separate issues in a single sentence. It begins with the words, "a well-regulated militia." Some individuals and legislators take this to mean that only the militia can bear arms to defend the country and its citizens. Militia does not include just the armed forces. It includes law enforcement officers as well.

      The Second Amendment also addresses the rights of private citizens in the same sentence. It includes the words, "the right of the "people" to keep and to bear arms." Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 and 2010 that the reference to militia is just an explanation of why Congress ratified the amendment - because the country has the right to defend itself. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that the militia reference doesn't limit arms to only law enforcement and the military. Most Americans have a constitutional right to own guns for the purpose of self-defense or certain legal activities, such as hunting or target practice.

      There's no big mystery as to what the 1st and 2nd Amendments are saying. It's quite clear. Not liking the 1st and 2nd Amendments won't change the fact that they exist and exist for good reasons. It's also quite clear that it's usually anti-American citizens and non-citizens that protest said Amendments. And if you protest the first 2 Amendments then for all intents and purposes you protest the other 25 Amendments and the Constitution as well. There are also some that would like to rewrite the Constitution. But I have to ask, why? And exactly with what would they replace it? Or would they simply replace the parts that they disagree with and to blazes with the rest of the country.
      October 22, 2017 9:24 PM MDT
    1

  • 17319
    Most of the rest of the world DOESN'T have the right to bear arms for a better reason. Vegas. Orlando. Sandy Hook. Columbine High.
      October 23, 2017 3:56 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500
    Because of Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook and Columbine, you say ?

    Can you name the countries around the world that have the highest rate of gun related death per 100,000 on an annual basis? Can you say how many of those allow gun ownership and how many ban ownership ? 

    Oh, there was a rather nasty incident in England about 30-years ago, 96-people died (much higher number than Vegas) and 766 were injured (also higher than the Vegas count). Do you know what weapon, or weapons were used there?

    Just curious . . .
      October 23, 2017 8:20 PM MDT
    1

  • 6023

    Actually, the American Founders recognized that ALL people have certain inalienable Rights.
    Some of those are in the first 10 Amendments to the American Constitution.

    As to your "better reason"?  You may want to read history a little more.
    Pol Pot.  Hitler.  Stalin.  Lenin. 
    Or do a web search on "genocide" in the last 100 years.  You'll find many where only the government had arms, and killed literally millions of people.

      October 23, 2017 10:34 PM MDT
    2

  • 35560
    Militia includes every able bodied male of military age. 
      October 23, 2017 4:18 PM MDT
    0

  • Agree. Sometimes my answers get a bit long-winded and I forget things occasionally. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

      The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

      To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 24, 2017 8:49 PM MDT
      October 24, 2017 8:38 PM MDT
    1

  • 14795
    If no one had guns no one could get shot.....but you also need to do something with your gun ho police.....

    ie ,a retired Sheriff not so long ago Shot and killed a guy texting on his mobile phone  in a cinema  while the film was being shown....
      October 23, 2017 4:11 PM MDT
    1