Owning guns a right but education and healthcare isnt?

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Well it is way more complicated...

If you think about how many people (tax payers) die by weapons (no matter if it's by an accident or on purpose) and the negative effects on the economy.
If you think about how much more heavy armor and weapons the police needs.
If you think about how many people own a gun, just because they fear that others could own a gun and threat them...

You will notice that the right to own guns costs those people a lot of money who don't want to own a gun.

So, if you think you have the right to own a gun and others should pay the cost, you also should think that everyone has the right for healthcare and education.

There are some two dozen nations that believe healthcare to be a fundamental human right and provide it for their citizens, healthcare that, via various means, are at least partially funded by taxes.

Yet, here in the U.S. there are those (some, no doubt so-called "Christians" who have much to say about rights to life) and perhaps a few HERE, who APPARENTLY are of the mind, "If I have to pay for it, let 'em DIE."

And yes, as pointed out by others here, there are other "rights" they DON'T seem to mind so much having to pay for.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I would not want to see the day when the US is subject to international courts and judicial authority. I cannot ever envision it happening, and I do not believe it should.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Maybe my post could have been better worded. Notwithstanding the broad thrust of my post is correct. The OP speaks of three rights (gun-ownership, healthcare and education). I suggest that the first is probably incompatible with universal rights; the second and third are requirements of universal rights.

I have some level of familiarity with the US Constitution. I have concerns about its relationship with universal rights. It presided over a slave-owning state, and seems more appropriate for a frontier-state than a twenty-first century democracy. There are severe democratic weaknesses, and we've seen a practice evolve where the presidency seems semi-hereditary. The Second Amendment (right to bear guns) might have been pragmatic in 1791 but is unacceptable in 2015 - and has been for about a century. The Constitution permits judicial murder, which may make the whole document subject to challenge before an international tribunal.

I know the US Constitution is a source of pride to many in the USA. This makes discussion a real problem. The USA needs either a new constitution fit for 2015 or very substantial revision.[/QUOTE


Given the fractured political world we in the Us are in, and will be for another generation or two at least the idea of a Constitutional Convention to draft or amend a new one gives me nightmares. The powerful money that controls most of what happens already would merely finish their work. A new one is a non starter.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation'.

On this issue Jefferson was wrong. Everytime a case is decided before the Supreme Court the Constitution is amended as a living breathing document. It is not perfect and there have been some do overs, but it has served us well. I can only imagine the campaigns to be elected to the Constitutional Convention every 20 years. That's where the power would be. Think about it. America is slowly seeing its education system crumble through economic deprivation and political meddling. The country could not field a body smart enough to act in the interests of the nation as a whole - it simply isn't possible. It was a miracle it was done the first time.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Interpreted, not amended, which is an entirely different process.

Not really. When the Court interprets it is settled law unless either the court changes its mind later, or Congress is able to get a law or an amendment is ratified - often too hard to do. Witness - marriage equity.
 

temptotalk

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Posts
1,952
Media
0
Likes
1,084
Points
123
Location
Thirdlegdia
Gender
Male
I'm thinking maybe this thread started off on the wrong foot. Are we talking the right to own/purchase a gun or the idiocy of not having guns controlled? Cause theres a large difference. Guns will never be banned completely but should we create some sort of control over those guns because well.. people are being murdered left and right?

Personally though... yeah i think people should have just as much a right to healthcare, education and etc as guns. Problem is, it's easier to kill someone/buy a gun than to help/teach/care for someone. It's also cheaper. I'm guessing thats the point. America would rather kill each other then to have to pay for each other in any way shape or form.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,618
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I would not want to see the day when the US is subject to international courts and judicial authority. I cannot ever envision it happening, and I do not believe it should.

This is the doctrine of American exceptionalism.

The European experience has been otherwise. The nations invaded from 1939 had their systems destroyed and the new systems established post-1945 were within an international context. The defeated nations were told that their systems were wrong, in many cases war crimes. For most nations (not the UK however) the experience has been of systems subject to international scrutiny.

The nations of the world are increasingly concerned that the USA is outside of international over-view. US emissions are a global problem. The US practice of judicial murder makes it hard for nations like the UK to condemn judicial murder in (say) Saudi Arabia; the progress the UK has recently made in getting China to reduce the frequency of judicial murder has in effect been achieved without the support of the USA. Gun ownership isn't just a US issue as many of the millions of US guns will be moved into other nations.

I don't know how the world gets the USA to accept that the USA is not supreme, but this has to be the goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boobalaa

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Not really. When the Court interprets it is settled law unless either the court changes its mind later, or Congress is able to get a law or an amendment is ratified - often too hard to do. Witness - marriage equity.

I didn't refer to the effect, but the process. Amending the Constitution has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This is the doctrine of American exceptionalism.

The European experience has been otherwise. The nations invaded from 1939 had their systems destroyed and the new systems established post-1945 were within an international context. The defeated nations were told that their systems were wrong, in many cases war crimes. For most nations (not the UK however) the experience has been of systems subject to international scrutiny.

The nations of the world are increasingly concerned that the USA is outside of international over-view. US emissions are a global problem. The US practice of judicial murder makes it hard for nations like the UK to condemn judicial murder in (say) Saudi Arabia; the progress the UK has recently made in getting China to reduce the frequency of judicial murder has in effect been achieved without the support of the USA. Gun ownership isn't just a US issue as many of the millions of US guns will be moved into other nations.

I don't know how the world gets the USA to accept that the USA is not supreme, but this has to be the goal.

The issue is not supreme, it is independence.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
We disagree, obviously.

The Constitutional Amendment Process

No mention of the Supreme Court.

I agree that a Supreme Court decision, for all practical purposes, can have the effect of a Constitutional amendment. So can acts passed by Congress, or in some cases even a Presidential executive action.

But none of those are actual amendments to the Constitution.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The Constitutional Amendment Process

No mention of the Supreme Court.

I agree that a Supreme Court decision, for all practical purposes, can have the effect of a Constitutional amendment. So can acts passed by Congress, or in some cases even a Presidential executive action.

But none of those are actual amendments to the Constitution.

Practical effect is all that matters.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I'm thinking maybe this thread started off on the wrong foot. Are we talking the right to own/purchase a gun or the idiocy of not having guns controlled? Cause theres a large difference. Guns will never be banned completely but should we create some sort of control over those guns because well.. people are being murdered left and right?

Personally though... yeah i think people should have just as much a right to healthcare, education and etc as guns. Problem is, it's easier to kill someone/buy a gun than to help/teach/care for someone. It's also cheaper. I'm guessing thats the point. America would rather kill each other then to have to pay for each other in any way shape or form.

I agree. And if Americans can't give a shit about them killing each other, I'm not sure why anyone else should.
 

phallic_deity86

Loved Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Posts
196
Media
2
Likes
707
Points
323
Location
California, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Americans will always stand up for death and destruction if it complies with our "national interests" as defined by our "leaders". It's easier if the people we're killing are darker skinned and don't speak English.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Americans will always stand up for death and destruction if it complies with our "national interests" as defined by our "leaders". It's easier if the people we're killing are darker skinned and don't speak English.

The irony is though that you have killed more of each other than the combined efforts of your enemies, ever.
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,863
Media
9
Likes
3,692
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
...Everytime a case is decided before the Supreme Court the Constitution is amended

In the world of sciences there is a fundamental requirement that theories must undergo rigorous testing, formulas followed that eventually lead to "proof". Much like we did in algebra and geometry classes as high school students, we had to "prove" our equations.

That quoted above, in my book, is absolute, unquestionable proof of ignorance!!!

.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In the world of sciences there is a fundamental requirement that theories must undergo rigorous testing, formulas followed that eventually lead to "proof". Much like we did in algebra and geometry classes as high school students, we had to "prove" our equations.

That quoted above, in my book, is absolute, unquestionable proof of ignorance!!!

.
Are you talking to yourself? Do you remember the Equal Rights Amendment? It failed to be ratified. However, subsequent Court decisions have pretty much made it the law of the land. One case at a time. Find the term gay marriage in the constitution. Law of the land. Try to pass an amendment to enshrine that. DOA.

It is nice to go to a party by way of the front door. However, going by the back door, or the side door still gets you into the party. Two thirds of this nation cannot agree on what day of the week it is.

Perhaps you need to re-visit middle school math before you tackle Algebra or Geometry. At the end of the day, results matter more than methods.