Ukrainians want 2nd Amendment to be added to their Constitution

[Kutnupe14]

That's my only thought. Can you imagine the price of guns and ammo if the entire world was as free (in respects to firearms) as we are? Can't even imagine the price of a Mosin Nagant when you've got hundreds of millions of people wanting to buy one instead of just the millions that want to now. The firearms we love really are available for purchase by only a fraction of the world's population. I wonder what fraction of world population has easy access to firearms? Can't be very big. Heck, India and China are highly restrictive and that's 1/3 the world's population right there.

Heck, once you've got that many people wanting one factories the world over will start churning out reproductions. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad price wise. Just a thought.

We won't have to worry about, at least, Western Europeans wanting guns like Americans for several generations. I've gotten into more than a few disagreement with Europeans over the 2nd Amendment. Many really have NO concept of the idea, and find it barbaric.

 

[88GT]

doesnt mean they shouldnt try

I think you might have misunderstood my point. I'm all about them trying. I was just pointing out that "shall not be infringed" isn't nearly the safeguard it is believed to be and that perhaps stronger language would be necessary to make it stick.

 

[indykid]

I wouldn't be worried about them buying up "all the guns" because they will be able to get guns that we in the land of shall not be infringed cannot own.

Was really nice listening to a Ukrainian reporter talking about the use of the weapon she called the Kalashnikov. At least their news media uses the real name of the rifle.

 

[sb0]

Eastern Europe is actually relatively receptive to right wing nuttery, due to their history.

It's a start.

That's my only thought. Can you imagine the price of guns and ammo if the entire world was as free (in respects to firearms) as we are? Can't even imagine the price of a Mosin Nagant when you've got hundreds of millions of people wanting to buy one instead of just the millions that want to now. The firearms we love really are available for purchase by only a fraction of the world's population. I wonder what fraction of world population has easy access to firearms? Can't be very big. Heck, India and China are highly restrictive and that's 1/3 the world's population right there.

Heck, once you've got that many people wanting one factories the world over will start churning out reproductions. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad price wise. Just a thought.

Increased demand = Increased supply.

You can kiss the Mosin Nagants goodbye because they're surplus, but everything in current production, no problem, at least after the initial buying surge.

Not to mention that Ukranians don't exactly have the buying power that we do.

 

[Birds Away]

Their proposed version is much weaker than ours.

Ours isn't even in effect in many, if not most, of our States. Our Second Amendment is actually quite hollow at this point.

 

[AtTheMurph]

I think you might have misunderstood my point. I'm all about them trying. I was just pointing out that "shall not be infringed" isn't nearly the safeguard it is believed to be and that perhaps stronger language would be necessary to make it stick.

Alexander Hamilton - "bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

He has been proven correct.

 

[88GT]

I disagree. Hamilton believed that Congress would act only within the expressly enumerated powers it had been granted in the Constitution. He has been proven grossly incorrect. And it's not because we have a written BoR. I would say that the BoR has been one of the reasons we haven't slid farther into tyranny. It is exactly the explicit nature of the limitations it places on Congress and the other branches that has prevented them from acting outside of their powers. (Not to say that the BoR has always prevented them from acting outside of their powers.) In the absence of such an explicit directive on the limitations, I imagine our situation would be even worse.

 

[BogWalker]

Agreed 88GT. The amendments have been sited very often to protect our rights in the court of law. Nations that don't have such rights explicitly listed have a long history of losing them. Governments do not recognize your inherent rights as a human being so they must be put into law if they are to stand at all.

 

[armedindy]

I think you might have misunderstood my point. I'm all about them trying. I was just pointing out that "shall not be infringed" isn't nearly the safeguard it is believed to be and that perhaps stronger language would be necessary to make it stick.

understood, and i like it

 

[HeadlessRoland]

That's my only thought. Can you imagine the price of guns and ammo if the entire world was as free (in respects to firearms) as we are? Can't even imagine the price of a Mosin Nagant when you've got hundreds of millions of people wanting to buy one instead of just the millions that want to now. The firearms we love really are available for purchase by only a fraction of the world's population. I wonder what fraction of world population has easy access to firearms? Can't be very big. Heck, India and China are highly restrictive and that's 1/3 the world's population right there.

Heck, once you've got that many people wanting one factories the world over will start churning out reproductions. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad price wise. Just a thought.

Supply would rise to meet demand to maximize profit. With current export/import restrictions in existence it probably wouldn't affect our supply too much, either.

But I would love to see it. An armed world as a politer world.

 

[AtTheMurph]

88GT - Hamilton argued that a BoRs would allow government inroads in limiting our freedoms. And he was exactly correct. why else would any of us even be discussing our "2nd amendment rights" as if the Constitution gives us something we don't have. If it gives us something then then we should also discuss how much it gives us and what other modifiers need to be applied - exactly the posiiton we are in as a nation.

The argument and understanding has changed and it is precisely because of the BoRs. It creates the plausible pretense to limit our personal liberties, exactly as Hamilton argued.


​

 

[88GT]

88GT - Hamilton argued that a BoRs would allow government inroads in limiting our freedoms. And he was exactly correct. why else would any of us even be discussing our "2nd amendment rights" as if the Constitution gives us something we don't have. If it gives us something then then we should also discuss how much it gives us and what other modifiers need to be applied - exactly the posiiton we are in as a nation.

The argument and understanding has changed and it is precisely because of the BoRs. It creates the plausible pretense to limit our personal liberties, exactly as Hamilton argued.


​

I know what he was saying. But he's only been proven correct because government ALWAYS move toward tyranny. It doesn't take a genius to predict what one knows to be true. We would be here with or without the BoR. And that is where Mr. Hamilton erred in his evaluation. He erroneously believed that the BoR opened up the door to infringement. My argument is that no such "door" need exist for government to infringe. That's just what it does. He believed that Congress would always operate within the restrictions imposed upon it by the Constitution itself. I think he's a damn fool for believing that. History alone should have told him so. What's more, a government that is willing to violate the governing documents of its existence would have no problem violation the "spirit" of its existence.

We don't have tyranny because of the BoR. We have tyranny because we have a government. What level of tyranny we have as it relates to the BoR is arguable. I for one believe that we have less. Do you for one minute think that Congress wouldn't have passed a complete ban on firearms were the 2nd not in existence?

 

[sb0]

I like this one. So according to liberals, guns are useless because if the government wanted to kill us, our guns wouldn't be enough. On the other hand, the success of the rebels in Ukraine without guns proves that we don't need them to fight the government.

In other words, guns are too much power and not enough power at the same time.

 

[reeseg45]

Well I hope the include definitions to every word for their second amendment. Otherwise the Al Gore's of the world will change the meaning of said words