INITIATIVE - 1491

[pianoman9701]

What would you guys support then? 

Every time someone shoots the hell out of a crowd everybody (me included) says it wasn't the guns fault, it was the fault of the crazy person.  So, what should we do to keep guns away from people that should not have them?
 

My wife asked me this because she voted for 1491. I told her I don't have an answer and that's still not a reason to vote for anything just because "we have to do something". We don't have to do something until we figure out a good way to reduce these types of crimes without reducing rights.

[huntnphool]

What would you guys support then? 

Every time someone shoots the hell out of a crowd everybody (me included) says it wasn't the guns fault, it was the fault of the crazy person.  So, what should we do to keep guns away from people that should not have them?
 

My wife asked me this because she voted for 1491. I told her I don't have an answer and that's still not a reason to vote for anything just because "we have to do something". We don't have to do something until we figure out a good way to reduce these types of crimes without reducing rights.

 Throwing mud on the walls.

[huntnphool]

Stock up and bury em for a rainy day.  Japan didn't invade and one reason was armed citizens.  This is a HUGE military advantage in time of war.  Comply with law but wait.  It wouldn't last.  Revolution would follow with the Gov. overreach that would follow.  Enforcement of this alone could trigger it.

So your choice is "3" Defy the law and risk life in prison.  Remember in this scenario 97% of the population supports outlawing guns.  No revolution, no ground swell of remorse.  The people of the nation made the choice.

 Red herring

Don't get defensive, this scenario is used in constitutional law classes to teach the limits of law and the effect it has on people.  It is constructed to force us to confront the basic premise that we only support the constitution because we like the freedoms it gives us.  Once those freedoms are taken away the integrity of the entire document has less meaning to us.  Its just something to think about.

 Defensive?

 I don't sit around thinking about Bigfoot either.

[Special T]

Stock up and bury em for a rainy day.  Japan didn't invade and one reason was armed citizens.  This is a HUGE military advantage in time of war.  Comply with law but wait.  It wouldn't last.  Revolution would follow with the Gov. overreach that would follow.  Enforcement of this alone could trigger it.

So your choice is "3" Defy the law and risk life in prison.  Remember in this scenario 97% of the population supports outlawing guns.  No revolution, no ground swell of remorse.  The people of the nation made the choice.

 Red herring

Don't get defensive, this scenario is used in constitutional law classes to teach the limits of law and the effect it has on people.  It is constructed to force us to confront the basic premise that we only support the constitution because we like the freedoms it gives us.  Once those freedoms are taken away the integrity of the entire document has less meaning to us.  Its just something to think about.

I think your hypothetical number is unlikely... I would have left the country long before it got to 97%.

I'm more inclined to make my stand with the conventionofstates.com to force the hand of our crappy political representatives. There currently are things that have nearly that kind of support but won't be passed by our so called representatives... term limits, single subject votes, balanced budget, and others.

[Alchase]

If 97% voted for this,
Only 3% still believe in the 2nd amendment to the current bill of rights?

That means we have already lost the war. I would bet a civil war would come before the scenario you describe could happen.

[JimmyHoffa]

3 percent fought the British during the Revolution.  Most people are more than happy just choking down chicken nuggets and watching zombie sitcoms.

[Mudman]

Stock up and bury em for a rainy day.  Japan didn't invade and one reason was armed citizens.  This is a HUGE military advantage in time of war.  Comply with law but wait.  It wouldn't last.  Revolution would follow with the Gov. overreach that would follow.  Enforcement of this alone could trigger it.

So your choice is "3" Defy the law and risk life in prison.  Remember in this scenario 97% of the population supports outlawing guns.  No revolution, no ground swell of remorse.  The people of the nation made the choice.

No, wrong.  I would turn em over to mother earth in a place I knew.  No law broken.  What guns? (Do you assume all guns are registered by this time?) IF they were needed in the future the option would be there.  Scenario is only for that exact time in history, how could it change in later years.  You see to get caught up in fake games is to be closed minded.  A wise man doesn't burn important bridges or give away his options.  No law broke, just wisdom as I wait....

[pianoman9701]

The Bill of Rights clearly provides protections for our law-abiding citizens even though the Forefathers were fully aware that criminals would ply those rights to their own advantage. Alexander Hamilton wrote about this in the Federalist papers but was adamant that we have them. Ben Franklin's famous quote ("Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.") also illustrates the point. Relinquishing your rights for the "overall good" is idiotic. It just leaves the door open to government tyranny.

[huntnphool]

Food for thought guys nothing more.  Any time we do this in a class room you typically get the same responses as we see here.  The point though is that no one wants to admit that they wouldn't support the constitution.  You can construct the scenario any way you want, would it change your answer if instead of guns it was religion, or free speech, unlawful search or any of the other basic human rights as we've come to know them?

 The food for thought should be taught that "we do indeed have a constitution" and we should fight to protect it, not dream up BS scenarios where we don't.

[Special T]

Macs B was making a hypothetical point which is fair game...

In not sure how the first 10 Admendments are the bill of rights that they can be waved. Imo if we are at the point where this can take place we likely aren't living in a very free country anyway...

[jennabug]

I'm curious how one would define mental illness for this purpose.  PTSD, depression, anxiety can all be temporary and treatable.  It's already hard enough to get veterans to admit needing help for PTSD, classified as a mental illness. I doubt they'd be likely to seek treatment if it would compromise their constitutional rights.

[Westside88]

This is what I posted on my facebook page regarding this initiative:

I know I have a pretty diverse group of friends and when it come to second amendment/ gun rights and gun control issues people can be very passionate about their positions. That being said I want to share some information about an Initiative on the ballot this year. I will be voting NO on Initiative I-1491. Interestingly this Initiative is opposed by both the NRA( National Rifle Association and the ACLU ( American Civil Liberties Union) when you have groups on both the Right and the Left agreeing that this would be bad Law, that's a good reason not to support this Initiative. Not to mention that I did choose to read it thoroughly and make my own choice. In my opinion it's another example of why such important issues should be debated and discussed in the legislative process, rather than presented in the initiative process where well intentioned citizens often make a decision based on clever or misleading position statements. I urge everyone to read and understand any and all initiatives before casting your ballots