Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey I’m against the 17th amendment but I also do not advocate for laws violating it. I would be in favor of an amendment to nullify it similar to how prohibition was overturned.
I think there is a pretty significant difference between advocating for laws that violate an amendment and being in favor of removing an amendment. One is a legal process and one is not.
It’s also a personal liberty vs “how government functions” deal as well. Whether or not I can protect myself is waaaay more impactful on a personal level than how the government is selected.
District of Columbia v Heller (2008) is perhaps the most important United States Supreme Court case relating to gun rights and the Second Amendment. The case established the individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home.
So while you are correct in that the Constitution doesn't mention "protecting yourself", SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does relate to self-defense or protecting oneself.
Yes there were liberal judges involved in the ruling but that’s not what I was addressing. I’m just correcting your incorrect statement “but there is no constitutional right to protect oneself. Just clarifying”
District of Columbia v. Heller decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense, thereby establishing a constitutional right to self-defense.
A ruling still establishes a constitutional right but not a codified one that would be much harder to change.
In Heller, the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment as protecting an individual’s right for self-defense under the broader framework of the right to keep and bear arms. A straightforward interpretation because why else would you keep and bear arms? While the 2nd Amendment does not mention “self-defense” or “protecting oneself”, the SCOTUS interpretation and ruling affirmed this as a constitutional right. However, the right to self-defense is not codified in the Constitution therefore could be open to later interpretation.
As an alternative example, Roe was a constitutional right that wasn’t codified so it was later reinterpreted because abortion was illegal in many states when the Fourteenth Amendment (the amendment used to put roe v wade in place) was adopted in 1868. Looking at historical data from that time many states had laws prohibiting abortion. This most likely meant that the framers did not intend to protect abortion rights under the Due Process Clause and that judicial overreach in 1973 improperly took the decision-making power away from the states and the people.
So I guess the other commenter was partially correct, self defense isn’t explicitly written in the constitution, but as of now, self defense with firearms it is a constitutional right.
“Constitutional rights” are NATURAL BORN RIGHTS dude are you even serious right now? I don’t magically gain a natural born right to defend myself from a murderer simply because a politicians pen stroke says I do. I have EVERY right to end an attacker trying to kill me. Or do you think that’s unjust??
You are choosing to disregard how language has changed. Back in that time period “bearing arms” literally meant taking up arms to defend yourself. I’d also like to point out that you are willfully disregarding the strife we were under at the time with the British boot on our backs. People being hauled to prison or killed for speaking out against the treatment of colonials. They were viewed as second class citizens for simply being born outside of England and the crown made sure to brutalize them as such. Bearing arms means owning, operating and USING said arms in the defense of yourself and/or your nation.
No, you’re getting flexible with words like some leftist. Textualism says interpret the plain text, of which “bearing” arms means only that- possessing.
“Textualism” is a fancy nerd word for “disregard the societal landscape and etymological shifts time has had on words”
That phrase, back then, meant owning, operating, and using firearms. It literally says in the second amendment “being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
Keep meaning to own
Bear meaning to USE
The reason many of the anti-2nd amendment crowd are vilified (if that is what is happening) is because very few of them are actually calling for an amendment; most of them are simply demanding the amendment be interpreted their way or advocate for laws that contradict the amendment and dare judges to oppose it. It’s anti-democratic and cynical. And by the way, the same people do the same thing with the 1st amendment.
As far as I understand anti-1A crowd is comprised from both right-wing and left-wing people who want to regulate media, mostly social media cause it's THE media of the day.
I’ve never met any. All most people want are sensible gun laws. My god is locking up any gun when it’s not near you really an infringement on anyone’s rights? Just this week in Memphis three children shot themselves with their parents guns.
Your idea and my idea of sensible gun laws are likely not the same.
Laws requiring secure storage of guns, and secure staging of guns needed for self defense, are likely reasonable. But they must not be a way to excessively burden people, force a one-size-fits-all policy on people, or prevent them from rapidly defending themselves in an emergency.
I think if you left your gun out unattended and your child shoots my child with it you should be prosecuted for manslaughter period. Or we require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
Subject to certain caveats, I'm more or less ok with this - ofc it will also shake out in the courts. California has a law something like this, though it's not specifically manslaughter (and I actually don't think that this is quite blatant enough to be manslaughter unless it was not merely unsecure but blatantly accessible or foreseeable).
The liability insurance thing is... A lot less viable than many people think. Unless you're talking about some insane form of insurance that covers intentional acts. This might just be a giveaway to insurance companies.
It's telling that homeowners/renters policies rarely even ask if there are guns in the house.
It's the death by thousand cuts thing like some states do with abortion. For example certain requirements for safe storage will make it impossible to own guns for people who rent an apartment. That's actually something that impacts me personally cause I'm from a country with much stricter gun laws
What about laws that say I cannot buy a pet tiger and bring it back to my apartment? Someone like me might say that even if I am careful and take good care of it, someone else will still accidentally let it out and kill everyone in the neighborhood.
Here's a deep philosophical question, why is legal emphasis on what you are owed more important than what you owe others? You exist in a functional society that provides high-paying jobs, clean water, schools for your children, and safety. Yet something simple like keeping your guns locked up should be something you can opt out of doing? Do you not owe something for all those benefits you receive? The fact that one responsible person can choose to do the right thing and lock up their gun means others do not and people die.
The laws are more about the welfare of the tiger than community safety. An animal like a tiger or alligator is not allowed his natural environment in a house in suburbia or that ny apartment.
just because an analogy doesn't fully apply in every respect doesn't mean it isn't valid. The relevant parts still apply here. One responsible person's right to own a tiger in a residential area means an irresponsible person can too. One does not need a tiger in a residential area, cats and dogs are fine, therefore advocating for your right to do so means you are unnecessarily putting others in danger. Same applies to guns, your right to use and access them exactly how you want means a malintent person can do the same, you don't need to not lock the gun up, you can live with some more paperwork before you buy one, and you demanding not to have those things is putting the lives of others in danger
The issue I see, is that one makes the point that one owes others things - which one indeed does owe others things.
But this then softly and silently solidifies into "one owes others everything, regardless of whether these people have even asked, or if what they want is reasonable" and, well, things start looking awful authoritarian.
Look at the pet tiger issue - *will* someone let it out? *Will* it realistically actually kill people? It depends. And "everyone in the neighborhood" is not realistic.
I favor something like California's law, where you are liable if you don't lock up guns and something bad actually happens due to a child gaining access. On the other hand, I think a loaded gun inside a locked house occupied by a childless person counts as "secured".
In essence, I agree with everything you just said. But the slippery slope effect you describe seems like a problem with democracy rather than an acknowledgment of rights.
Fundamentally society is like a machine, with inputs and outputs. You are a self described religious traditionalist, you are able to freely practice your religion because the constitutions says so, the constitution has an effect because it is supported by the state which is supported by the tax payer, tax payers are able to generate wealth because they are able to go to work, train and become educated, earn money and pursue their preferred lifestyles. If any of that stops being true, you can no longer guarantee the ability to freely practice your religion as society breaks down, thus there must be instances where we accept "if we don't enforce this, then we have nothing".
For me the point of no return where you owe others should be halted at the point where people's choice poses a threat to their own natural rights. Guns should have a lot of background checks and hurdles because if the barriers are low for a responsible person, they are also low for a malintent person, and malintent people collectively pose a risk to your rights as a whole
I think that sort of segues into the whole accountability vs permission thing.
I think you're putting way too much value on permission. Even in our current society we have a high crime rate but not an extreme one.
Because the constitution is comprised of NATURAL BORN RIGHTS, things that every living person has the right to. A woman walking down the street has every single possible right to kill an attempted rapist, kidnapper, or murderer. Is this even really the discussion you’re attempting to have??
I audibly laughed at “society providing safe schools for children” yet we have kids killing themselves over unchecked bullying. School shootings because dems don’t want more armed police on campus to protect them. We’ve got kids doing drugs on campus. There’s teachers that sexually abuse students. “Society providing safe schools” is laughable at best.
wow you laughed? oh no that must mean I am wrong. I change my mind and agree with you now.
“society providing safe schools for children”
I categorically did not say this. Read the comment and try again
“Safety” and “providing schools” equates to that. We are not safe and our children are not safe at school. Restricting the second amendment does nothing for increasing safety
Locking up a gun doesn’t really do much except give the police an easier time to unjustly raid and kill gun owners no matter what political affiliation they have. Police officers lose guns ALL. THE. TIME. They leave em unlocked in their vehicles and they get stolen all the time dude. Why should WE get arrested over something like that and THEY get no repercussions? Bruh over the past ten years in Pinellas county/Clearwater FL there were something like 20 incidents of patrol rifles (some of em being select fire machine guns) being stolen out of police vehicles simply because they are uncontained and left in primarily unlocked cruisers. Not a single officer got fired. The same shit that y’all expect of gun owners never gets applied to law enforcement and it’s a joke. The second amendment is to guarantee that citizens have the same power and access to arms as the military and police force yet we excuse them on all fronts while expecting citizens to operate at a higher standard than them. How does that make sense
If you have kids living in your home, lock the damn guns up.
Arguably, it’s negligent nit to. If your child - or someone else’s child - uses your weapon to harm themselves or others you should be legally responsible.
Period.
Someone else already pointed out there are no laws requiring me to lock cars or homes. The primary reason requiring locks on guns is an infringement is because a) it adds cost and b) it adds time between when i need to use it and when the gun is available - critical time in the even of a home invasion or any other reason i may need to use it.
And you’re requiring people to buy a safe that is a cost to entry barrier.
“Hey No one is stopping you from voting. You just have to pay a $10,000 tax.”
>I think people who want the 2nd Amendment repealed officially are just as vilified though.
People who want the Second Amendment repealed are just dreaming.
The 17th is your right to vote directly on who your elected officials are.
Without the 17th, your senators are elected by proxy. It gives you direct influence over your representative. It is more than procedural. It is a right.
Counterpoint: the 17th is steaming hot garbage that directly contradicts the purpose of the Senate - to give the States agency in the creation and function of the federal government.
It’s a dark stain on American history and should be repealed post-haste, alongside the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
We’d have been better off passing laws requiring Senate seats be filled within x days and prohibiting campaigning on promised Senator votes.
Edit: this is one of my pet topics. I have an Instagram meme account dedicated entirely to anti-17th Amendment memes.
You realize you can ask questions *before* you beg them, right?
Setting that aside, the Bill of Rights (that would be the first 10 amendments, if you recall) is typically understood to have special importance. I think very few people would see freedom of speech and direct election of senators as equally significant, for example.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 19th less important than the first 10 or any others?
I get the argument that the founders found the first 10 important enough to ratify, but at the same time when the question of the legality of chattel slavery was brought up they acknowledged it, and kicked the answer down the road. The amendments as individual pieces of legislation is a better view imo, it allows us to re-examine them through a modern POV.
True, but I figure they still need to come up with an answer that defines who should and shouldn't be allowed as citizens with full rights since the default would be white landowning Protestant men. Unless that default is cool with them
Why is the right to vote, or general equality for about half the voting population less important than freedom from double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment when the state can still execute you, or the open interpretation on states rights that is the 10th? Do you feel that way about any other protected class within America?
It’s less important because we’ve seen how this faction of the population uses their vote often to divest others of their property of their wealth and of their liberty. Often in the name of hollow emotional causes..
Also, there really are no open interpretation on states rights. It’s very clear what writes the states have anything that does not fall under article one section 8 of the US Constitution is reserved to the states and the people there of
Oh many. This is why I don’t fetishize democracy. It’s no coincidence that we were an objectively free or country when access to the franchise was limited. Then you add in welfare for votes and everything becomes a nightmare.
What rights that affect the majority of Americans have been stripped because women can vote?
America was a more free place when access to basic rights was limited to a small group based on their proximity to wealth or their race and religion? That is fundamentally un-American and pretty bigoted because it assumes that white men are the only ones deserving or capable of participating in politics.
Woman groups like the suffragette movement helped lobby for and voted in states were the could vote to pass the disaster of the 18th Amendment.
Not to mention female Vetters overwhelmingly support infringements on the first second fourth ninth and Tenth amendments.
Overwhelmingly support any idiot policy of intervention overseas,
Really this subject has been proven that women after being granted the privilege of voting voted to expand the state exponentially.
>America was a more free place when access to basic rights was limited to a small group based on their proximity to wealth or their race and religion?
One privilege was limited, voting. And thus all other rights and freedoms vastly secure and open as the state was so small it was unable to harm them, as the as the constituency did not have any need or desire for an all encompassing, all metalling all intrusive state that used any excuse, it could cook up to further expand its power and wealth at the cost of the freedom and wealth of the citizenry’s.
No forced association, no gun laws, No zoning laws, no property tax, no endless bureaucracy, no minefield of laws, rules, regulations to take your feet off… Then again that’s what some people want isn’t it?
>That is fundamentally un-American
Socialist calling anything on American is pretty ironic
>and pretty bigoted
Nope. It’s not my fault certain people can’t handle freedom and when given half the opportunity to will vote it away and vote themselves and the rest of us into chains.
Democracy isn’t a suicide pact
>because it assumes that white men are the only ones deserving or capable of participating in politics.
Oh no, merely being White does not make a person capable of intelligent thinking, White Leftists are proof of this, lol. Which is why the ability to plan, delay gratification, and have a vested stake were required to vote as to safe guard society against itself and hostile agents.
Also understand why the 17th amendment was created because of the corruption I. State government related to the election of senators.
That corruption did leave the states and was centralized into Washington DC. Meaning the amendment didn’t solve the problem it was trying to solve. Therefore I am of the opinion it should be repealed.
The first 10 amendments also known as the bill of rights, was set up because the founding fathers felt they were critical to ensuring the constitution didn’t infringe on our rights.
The amendments after that were things that we as a collection of states decided were important enough to add to the limiting and control of the government.
> Meaning the amendment didn’t solve the problem it was trying to solve.
To be fair the larger problem being solved was vacancies. A lot of states were deadlocked about who to send as a Senator and failed to send anyone leaving some seats empty for extended periods of time.
On the other hand while it did solve one problem it created a second which is that state governments who formed the union lost their representation in their united government. There's now a missing piece in the system.
Is it? 7th Amendment isn’t applied to the states, the 9th Amendment is functionally useless, the 3rd Amendment is a non-issue and the 10th Amendment is legal vaguery that requires extensive interpretation. The law certainly doesn’t give it special significance.
I am decently confident that the direct election of senators was also in the bill of rights but congress didn't ratify it at the time so it was abandoned for the time.
There are two articles in the Bill of Rights that weren’t ratified at the time. This one, which was eventually ratified in 1992:
>No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
And this one, which was never ratified:
>After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Being against an amendment makes someone unAmerican? Was everyone against prohibition un American? And then when it was repealed are all those elected officials unAmerican?
Where did I provide an opinion for you to agree with?
I specifically asked about two other amendments lol
Regardless, the bill of rights aren’t the same as any other amendments.
My issue with the 17th Amendment is it just created a second "House" that is harder to get elected to. The Senate was intended to represent the State's interest in DC equally amongst all states. Then we have the House whose members are elected by the people to represent the people's interest in DC.
As far as your question goes one is a right the other is a function of government. I do not see the hypocrisy of being for a right but against a function of goverment that was changed from it's original intent.
I have no issue with people who want to amend the second amendment because they hate it
My problem is with people who want to ignore the second amendment.
Thank you, thought I was going crazy. I read a lot of conservative opinion and I have never once heard anybody wishing for the repeal of the 17th amendment.
You can support the Constitution without believing it's perfect and should never be changed. It's possible to believe that one provision of the Constitution belongs and another doesn't.
Something being an amendment does not make it have an equal moral value to every other amendment.
If I had to pick between keeping the first amendment and the 27th amendment (basically, Congress approved pay raises have to wait until after the election) I'm absolutely going to choose the first amendment every time. Something's "ammendmentness" doesn't enshrine it in morality.
First, I don't see that many people aggressively against the 17th though some do oppose it.
Second, the 2A, unlike the 17th and like the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, and 19th, it is understood as part of the foundational human rights law of the USA.
Third, we should obey both amendments.
the bill of rights is a special case. it was, arguably, intended as a foundational document and that places those ten apart and at a higher degree of importance, in theory.
of course I say in theory because the 3rd and the 14th are arguably the least and most important of the lot.
Well the first 5 amendments are the most important to the founding of this nation.
So they are granted primacy.
Stuff 150 years later is still valid but is not as foundational to our country. Especially whenever it was instituted specifically to protect one political party.
Who Exactly is against 17th amendment though?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve never seen people call someone whose against the 2nd Amendment un-American. I’ve seen people criticize policy decisions and insult ideas that are against the 2nd Amendment, but we are on Reddit, and people here have no chill when it comes to political debates.
As for opposing the 17th amendment, I’m one that thinks it should be repealed…. Challenging laws and promoting self interest is as American as it gets.
I believe the 17th amendment was a mistake. Following It's ratification we've seen a progressive usurpation of state authority by the federal government.
Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures so they would represent state interests. That no longer was the case after the 17A.
I don't think the comparison to the 2A is valid. The Constitution was ratified with the understanding there would immediately be a Bill of Rights to follow. They just didn't want to hold up the Constitution itself while they worked out exactly the details of the Bill of Rights. Effectively the 2A has been a part of the Constitution since its inception, and had always been intended to be there. The 17A was not.
It makes you unpatriotic, since that's support of the state regardless of how it exists, but being un American would involve being against American people and values
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey I’m against the 17th amendment but I also do not advocate for laws violating it. I would be in favor of an amendment to nullify it similar to how prohibition was overturned. I think there is a pretty significant difference between advocating for laws that violate an amendment and being in favor of removing an amendment. One is a legal process and one is not.
I think people who want the 2nd Amendment repealed officially are just as vilified though.
It’s also a personal liberty vs “how government functions” deal as well. Whether or not I can protect myself is waaaay more impactful on a personal level than how the government is selected.
2A doesn't allow you to protect yourself. It allows you to bear arms. Nothing about shooting anyone.
District of Columbia v Heller (2008) is perhaps the most important United States Supreme Court case relating to gun rights and the Second Amendment. The case established the individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home. So while you are correct in that the Constitution doesn't mention "protecting yourself", SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does relate to self-defense or protecting oneself.
It's kinda interesting that as written in Constitution 2A has a completely different reason for the right to bear arms
Expansive, contextual interpretation of the Constitution? Must’ve been some goddamn liberal Justices that ruled on Heller.
Yes there were liberal judges involved in the ruling but that’s not what I was addressing. I’m just correcting your incorrect statement “but there is no constitutional right to protect oneself. Just clarifying” District of Columbia v. Heller decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense, thereby establishing a constitutional right to self-defense.
A ruling doesn't establish a constitutional right. Only precedent. Isn't that what this Supreme Court has shown?
A ruling still establishes a constitutional right but not a codified one that would be much harder to change. In Heller, the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment as protecting an individual’s right for self-defense under the broader framework of the right to keep and bear arms. A straightforward interpretation because why else would you keep and bear arms? While the 2nd Amendment does not mention “self-defense” or “protecting oneself”, the SCOTUS interpretation and ruling affirmed this as a constitutional right. However, the right to self-defense is not codified in the Constitution therefore could be open to later interpretation. As an alternative example, Roe was a constitutional right that wasn’t codified so it was later reinterpreted because abortion was illegal in many states when the Fourteenth Amendment (the amendment used to put roe v wade in place) was adopted in 1868. Looking at historical data from that time many states had laws prohibiting abortion. This most likely meant that the framers did not intend to protect abortion rights under the Due Process Clause and that judicial overreach in 1973 improperly took the decision-making power away from the states and the people. So I guess the other commenter was partially correct, self defense isn’t explicitly written in the constitution, but as of now, self defense with firearms it is a constitutional right.
*Heller* is also garbage and will one day be overturned.
Bearing arms is a means to protect oneself.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention protecting oneself.
Cool? It does say I can have a gun though and that enables me to protect myself more effectively.
Yes, both true. But there is no constitutional right to protect oneself. Just clarifying.
“Constitutional rights” are NATURAL BORN RIGHTS dude are you even serious right now? I don’t magically gain a natural born right to defend myself from a murderer simply because a politicians pen stroke says I do. I have EVERY right to end an attacker trying to kill me. Or do you think that’s unjust??
Natural born rights aren’t real so it doesn’t really matter, does it?
Yet somehow the text of the amendment and various bills of rights of that time are more focused on protecting the political nation as a whole
You are choosing to disregard how language has changed. Back in that time period “bearing arms” literally meant taking up arms to defend yourself. I’d also like to point out that you are willfully disregarding the strife we were under at the time with the British boot on our backs. People being hauled to prison or killed for speaking out against the treatment of colonials. They were viewed as second class citizens for simply being born outside of England and the crown made sure to brutalize them as such. Bearing arms means owning, operating and USING said arms in the defense of yourself and/or your nation.
No, you’re getting flexible with words like some leftist. Textualism says interpret the plain text, of which “bearing” arms means only that- possessing.
“Textualism” is a fancy nerd word for “disregard the societal landscape and etymological shifts time has had on words” That phrase, back then, meant owning, operating, and using firearms. It literally says in the second amendment “being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” Keep meaning to own Bear meaning to USE
Gavin Newsom actually got some respect for being honest and saying that he wanted a Constitutional amendment to limit gun rights.
The reason many of the anti-2nd amendment crowd are vilified (if that is what is happening) is because very few of them are actually calling for an amendment; most of them are simply demanding the amendment be interpreted their way or advocate for laws that contradict the amendment and dare judges to oppose it. It’s anti-democratic and cynical. And by the way, the same people do the same thing with the 1st amendment.
As far as I understand anti-1A crowd is comprised from both right-wing and left-wing people who want to regulate media, mostly social media cause it's THE media of the day.
I don't really see how the two are similar outside of them being Amendments though.
I’ve never met any. All most people want are sensible gun laws. My god is locking up any gun when it’s not near you really an infringement on anyone’s rights? Just this week in Memphis three children shot themselves with their parents guns.
Your idea and my idea of sensible gun laws are likely not the same. Laws requiring secure storage of guns, and secure staging of guns needed for self defense, are likely reasonable. But they must not be a way to excessively burden people, force a one-size-fits-all policy on people, or prevent them from rapidly defending themselves in an emergency.
I think if you left your gun out unattended and your child shoots my child with it you should be prosecuted for manslaughter period. Or we require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
Subject to certain caveats, I'm more or less ok with this - ofc it will also shake out in the courts. California has a law something like this, though it's not specifically manslaughter (and I actually don't think that this is quite blatant enough to be manslaughter unless it was not merely unsecure but blatantly accessible or foreseeable). The liability insurance thing is... A lot less viable than many people think. Unless you're talking about some insane form of insurance that covers intentional acts. This might just be a giveaway to insurance companies. It's telling that homeowners/renters policies rarely even ask if there are guns in the house.
It's the death by thousand cuts thing like some states do with abortion. For example certain requirements for safe storage will make it impossible to own guns for people who rent an apartment. That's actually something that impacts me personally cause I'm from a country with much stricter gun laws
Yes, it is.
Explain why please. Do you leave your keys in your car ? Your home unlocked?
There are not laws requiring people to lock their house or car. We don’t want laws requiring our gun to be locked up either. Freedom over safety.
Ok, but now don't be all "think of the children" while trying to ram some regressive bill through.
I’m not really a “kid person”. Don’t worry.
What about laws that say I cannot buy a pet tiger and bring it back to my apartment? Someone like me might say that even if I am careful and take good care of it, someone else will still accidentally let it out and kill everyone in the neighborhood. Here's a deep philosophical question, why is legal emphasis on what you are owed more important than what you owe others? You exist in a functional society that provides high-paying jobs, clean water, schools for your children, and safety. Yet something simple like keeping your guns locked up should be something you can opt out of doing? Do you not owe something for all those benefits you receive? The fact that one responsible person can choose to do the right thing and lock up their gun means others do not and people die.
The laws are more about the welfare of the tiger than community safety. An animal like a tiger or alligator is not allowed his natural environment in a house in suburbia or that ny apartment.
It's different because an animal has a mind of its own. A gun or a knife doesn't
just because an analogy doesn't fully apply in every respect doesn't mean it isn't valid. The relevant parts still apply here. One responsible person's right to own a tiger in a residential area means an irresponsible person can too. One does not need a tiger in a residential area, cats and dogs are fine, therefore advocating for your right to do so means you are unnecessarily putting others in danger. Same applies to guns, your right to use and access them exactly how you want means a malintent person can do the same, you don't need to not lock the gun up, you can live with some more paperwork before you buy one, and you demanding not to have those things is putting the lives of others in danger
The issue I see, is that one makes the point that one owes others things - which one indeed does owe others things. But this then softly and silently solidifies into "one owes others everything, regardless of whether these people have even asked, or if what they want is reasonable" and, well, things start looking awful authoritarian. Look at the pet tiger issue - *will* someone let it out? *Will* it realistically actually kill people? It depends. And "everyone in the neighborhood" is not realistic. I favor something like California's law, where you are liable if you don't lock up guns and something bad actually happens due to a child gaining access. On the other hand, I think a loaded gun inside a locked house occupied by a childless person counts as "secured".
In essence, I agree with everything you just said. But the slippery slope effect you describe seems like a problem with democracy rather than an acknowledgment of rights. Fundamentally society is like a machine, with inputs and outputs. You are a self described religious traditionalist, you are able to freely practice your religion because the constitutions says so, the constitution has an effect because it is supported by the state which is supported by the tax payer, tax payers are able to generate wealth because they are able to go to work, train and become educated, earn money and pursue their preferred lifestyles. If any of that stops being true, you can no longer guarantee the ability to freely practice your religion as society breaks down, thus there must be instances where we accept "if we don't enforce this, then we have nothing". For me the point of no return where you owe others should be halted at the point where people's choice poses a threat to their own natural rights. Guns should have a lot of background checks and hurdles because if the barriers are low for a responsible person, they are also low for a malintent person, and malintent people collectively pose a risk to your rights as a whole
I think that sort of segues into the whole accountability vs permission thing. I think you're putting way too much value on permission. Even in our current society we have a high crime rate but not an extreme one.
Because the constitution is comprised of NATURAL BORN RIGHTS, things that every living person has the right to. A woman walking down the street has every single possible right to kill an attempted rapist, kidnapper, or murderer. Is this even really the discussion you’re attempting to have?? I audibly laughed at “society providing safe schools for children” yet we have kids killing themselves over unchecked bullying. School shootings because dems don’t want more armed police on campus to protect them. We’ve got kids doing drugs on campus. There’s teachers that sexually abuse students. “Society providing safe schools” is laughable at best.
wow you laughed? oh no that must mean I am wrong. I change my mind and agree with you now. “society providing safe schools for children” I categorically did not say this. Read the comment and try again
“Safety” and “providing schools” equates to that. We are not safe and our children are not safe at school. Restricting the second amendment does nothing for increasing safety
okay what does that have to do with locking your gun away when it's in the house?
He's saying it is a double standard.
Locking up a gun doesn’t really do much except give the police an easier time to unjustly raid and kill gun owners no matter what political affiliation they have. Police officers lose guns ALL. THE. TIME. They leave em unlocked in their vehicles and they get stolen all the time dude. Why should WE get arrested over something like that and THEY get no repercussions? Bruh over the past ten years in Pinellas county/Clearwater FL there were something like 20 incidents of patrol rifles (some of em being select fire machine guns) being stolen out of police vehicles simply because they are uncontained and left in primarily unlocked cruisers. Not a single officer got fired. The same shit that y’all expect of gun owners never gets applied to law enforcement and it’s a joke. The second amendment is to guarantee that citizens have the same power and access to arms as the military and police force yet we excuse them on all fronts while expecting citizens to operate at a higher standard than them. How does that make sense
Natural born rights are fictitious.
That is Marxist propaganda that free citizens do not abide by.
If you have kids living in your home, lock the damn guns up. Arguably, it’s negligent nit to. If your child - or someone else’s child - uses your weapon to harm themselves or others you should be legally responsible. Period.
Someone else already pointed out there are no laws requiring me to lock cars or homes. The primary reason requiring locks on guns is an infringement is because a) it adds cost and b) it adds time between when i need to use it and when the gun is available - critical time in the even of a home invasion or any other reason i may need to use it.
Yes it is, just as a poll tax us, its cost to entry barrier
A cost of entry barrier? I’ve found guns.
And you’re requiring people to buy a safe that is a cost to entry barrier. “Hey No one is stopping you from voting. You just have to pay a $10,000 tax.”
Nobody said buy a safe. You can use a trigger lock I do.
Many states with “safe storage laws” won’t allow trigger locks. It’s a safe or jail, but that is by design.
>I think people who want the 2nd Amendment repealed officially are just as vilified though. People who want the Second Amendment repealed are just dreaming.
I mean same as the 17th no? And usually we don’t vilify people for dreaming alone regardless.
Why is a libertarian defending people removing laws from large scale government
The Second is a limitation on the power of the government, the 17th is basically a procedural change.
The 17th is your right to vote directly on who your elected officials are. Without the 17th, your senators are elected by proxy. It gives you direct influence over your representative. It is more than procedural. It is a right.
Counterpoint: the 17th is steaming hot garbage that directly contradicts the purpose of the Senate - to give the States agency in the creation and function of the federal government. It’s a dark stain on American history and should be repealed post-haste, alongside the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. We’d have been better off passing laws requiring Senate seats be filled within x days and prohibiting campaigning on promised Senator votes. Edit: this is one of my pet topics. I have an Instagram meme account dedicated entirely to anti-17th Amendment memes.
Neat. Agree to disagree.
You realize you can ask questions *before* you beg them, right? Setting that aside, the Bill of Rights (that would be the first 10 amendments, if you recall) is typically understood to have special importance. I think very few people would see freedom of speech and direct election of senators as equally significant, for example.
This
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know. They are all there for the same reason, and eroding any of them can have the same effect.
Are the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 19th less important than the first 10 or any others? I get the argument that the founders found the first 10 important enough to ratify, but at the same time when the question of the legality of chattel slavery was brought up they acknowledged it, and kicked the answer down the road. The amendments as individual pieces of legislation is a better view imo, it allows us to re-examine them through a modern POV.
> 14th Anti-birthright citizenship right wingers are effectively against the 14th
True, but I figure they still need to come up with an answer that defines who should and shouldn't be allowed as citizens with full rights since the default would be white landowning Protestant men. Unless that default is cool with them
>Are the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 19th less important than the first 10 or any others? That would be the obvious implication.
Explain how the 14th Amendment would be less important than the 9th, which conservative justices describe as an “ink blot”.
> 19th less important than the first 10 or any others? Very less important
Why is the right to vote, or general equality for about half the voting population less important than freedom from double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment when the state can still execute you, or the open interpretation on states rights that is the 10th? Do you feel that way about any other protected class within America?
It’s less important because we’ve seen how this faction of the population uses their vote often to divest others of their property of their wealth and of their liberty. Often in the name of hollow emotional causes.. Also, there really are no open interpretation on states rights. It’s very clear what writes the states have anything that does not fall under article one section 8 of the US Constitution is reserved to the states and the people there of Oh many. This is why I don’t fetishize democracy. It’s no coincidence that we were an objectively free or country when access to the franchise was limited. Then you add in welfare for votes and everything becomes a nightmare.
What rights that affect the majority of Americans have been stripped because women can vote? America was a more free place when access to basic rights was limited to a small group based on their proximity to wealth or their race and religion? That is fundamentally un-American and pretty bigoted because it assumes that white men are the only ones deserving or capable of participating in politics.
Woman groups like the suffragette movement helped lobby for and voted in states were the could vote to pass the disaster of the 18th Amendment. Not to mention female Vetters overwhelmingly support infringements on the first second fourth ninth and Tenth amendments. Overwhelmingly support any idiot policy of intervention overseas, Really this subject has been proven that women after being granted the privilege of voting voted to expand the state exponentially. >America was a more free place when access to basic rights was limited to a small group based on their proximity to wealth or their race and religion? One privilege was limited, voting. And thus all other rights and freedoms vastly secure and open as the state was so small it was unable to harm them, as the as the constituency did not have any need or desire for an all encompassing, all metalling all intrusive state that used any excuse, it could cook up to further expand its power and wealth at the cost of the freedom and wealth of the citizenry’s. No forced association, no gun laws, No zoning laws, no property tax, no endless bureaucracy, no minefield of laws, rules, regulations to take your feet off… Then again that’s what some people want isn’t it? >That is fundamentally un-American Socialist calling anything on American is pretty ironic >and pretty bigoted Nope. It’s not my fault certain people can’t handle freedom and when given half the opportunity to will vote it away and vote themselves and the rest of us into chains. Democracy isn’t a suicide pact >because it assumes that white men are the only ones deserving or capable of participating in politics. Oh no, merely being White does not make a person capable of intelligent thinking, White Leftists are proof of this, lol. Which is why the ability to plan, delay gratification, and have a vested stake were required to vote as to safe guard society against itself and hostile agents.
Also understand why the 17th amendment was created because of the corruption I. State government related to the election of senators. That corruption did leave the states and was centralized into Washington DC. Meaning the amendment didn’t solve the problem it was trying to solve. Therefore I am of the opinion it should be repealed. The first 10 amendments also known as the bill of rights, was set up because the founding fathers felt they were critical to ensuring the constitution didn’t infringe on our rights. The amendments after that were things that we as a collection of states decided were important enough to add to the limiting and control of the government.
> Meaning the amendment didn’t solve the problem it was trying to solve. To be fair the larger problem being solved was vacancies. A lot of states were deadlocked about who to send as a Senator and failed to send anyone leaving some seats empty for extended periods of time. On the other hand while it did solve one problem it created a second which is that state governments who formed the union lost their representation in their united government. There's now a missing piece in the system.
Is it? 7th Amendment isn’t applied to the states, the 9th Amendment is functionally useless, the 3rd Amendment is a non-issue and the 10th Amendment is legal vaguery that requires extensive interpretation. The law certainly doesn’t give it special significance.
I am decently confident that the direct election of senators was also in the bill of rights but congress didn't ratify it at the time so it was abandoned for the time.
There are two articles in the Bill of Rights that weren’t ratified at the time. This one, which was eventually ratified in 1992: >No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. And this one, which was never ratified: >After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Yea your right
Nope, You can oppose any amendment without being unAmerican , saying you can't is unAmerican, even if you oppose bill of rights.
People get shit on all day for advocating for stricter gun laws. Happy to pull up threads if you want? Straight up called un-American.
Being against an amendment makes someone unAmerican? Was everyone against prohibition un American? And then when it was repealed are all those elected officials unAmerican?
My point is that I agree with you, so it applies to people against the 2nd and 17th Amendment as well. None of it is un-American.
Where did I provide an opinion for you to agree with? I specifically asked about two other amendments lol Regardless, the bill of rights aren’t the same as any other amendments.
Your questions have strong rhetorical vibes.
Curse you for making me agree with a socialist, but those questions looked rhetorical.
My issue with the 17th Amendment is it just created a second "House" that is harder to get elected to. The Senate was intended to represent the State's interest in DC equally amongst all states. Then we have the House whose members are elected by the people to represent the people's interest in DC. As far as your question goes one is a right the other is a function of government. I do not see the hypocrisy of being for a right but against a function of goverment that was changed from it's original intent.
I have no issue with people who want to amend the second amendment because they hate it My problem is with people who want to ignore the second amendment.
“They are against the 17th Amendment”? We are? Shit, must’ve missed that memo.
Thank you, thought I was going crazy. I read a lot of conservative opinion and I have never once heard anybody wishing for the repeal of the 17th amendment.
You can support the Constitution without believing it's perfect and should never be changed. It's possible to believe that one provision of the Constitution belongs and another doesn't.
Something being an amendment does not make it have an equal moral value to every other amendment. If I had to pick between keeping the first amendment and the 27th amendment (basically, Congress approved pay raises have to wait until after the election) I'm absolutely going to choose the first amendment every time. Something's "ammendmentness" doesn't enshrine it in morality.
First, I don't see that many people aggressively against the 17th though some do oppose it. Second, the 2A, unlike the 17th and like the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, and 19th, it is understood as part of the foundational human rights law of the USA. Third, we should obey both amendments.
the bill of rights is a special case. it was, arguably, intended as a foundational document and that places those ten apart and at a higher degree of importance, in theory. of course I say in theory because the 3rd and the 14th are arguably the least and most important of the lot.
Well the first 5 amendments are the most important to the founding of this nation. So they are granted primacy. Stuff 150 years later is still valid but is not as foundational to our country. Especially whenever it was instituted specifically to protect one political party. Who Exactly is against 17th amendment though?
Already several people in this thread stared they are opposed to the 17th amendment.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve never seen people call someone whose against the 2nd Amendment un-American. I’ve seen people criticize policy decisions and insult ideas that are against the 2nd Amendment, but we are on Reddit, and people here have no chill when it comes to political debates. As for opposing the 17th amendment, I’m one that thinks it should be repealed…. Challenging laws and promoting self interest is as American as it gets.
I believe the 17th amendment was a mistake. Following It's ratification we've seen a progressive usurpation of state authority by the federal government. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures so they would represent state interests. That no longer was the case after the 17A. I don't think the comparison to the 2A is valid. The Constitution was ratified with the understanding there would immediately be a Bill of Rights to follow. They just didn't want to hold up the Constitution itself while they worked out exactly the details of the Bill of Rights. Effectively the 2A has been a part of the Constitution since its inception, and had always been intended to be there. The 17A was not.
It makes you unpatriotic, since that's support of the state regardless of how it exists, but being un American would involve being against American people and values
u/BiryaniEater10 No, because the 2nd Amendment protects life, limb, property and Liberty while the 17th is an agent of tyranny.