(February 19, 2018 at 5:36 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Define "Unalienable".

"Unalienable" in the context of Missouri's right to bear arms means that it's not to be routinely fucked with.

= "shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity."

There is so much wrong with this law

1. Does not account competence. 

2. Tons of people who should never have a gun will never be deemed mentally unfit by a court . 

3. Tons of people with a history of violence are neither mentally ill or will convicted in a court of law 

On a side note what qualifies as arms?

I love made up words.

(February 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: "Unalienable" in the context of Missouri's right to bear arms means that it's not to be routinely fucked with.

= "shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity."

The problem with the concept of "unalienable" is it's unconstitutional. The fact that amendments can be made to the constitution is proof that none of these sections are actually unalienable. People can argue that the language of the section says this or that, but there's nothing stopping the government, with enough votes, from repealing that section or replacing the text.

Also the ability to quote a laws says nothing about reasonability of said law.

Also worth pointing out that a federal ban on guns could not be countered by a state constitution guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms. Federal laws trump state laws.

State laws can usually be more restrictive that federal laws, but they can't be less restrictive.

And indeed calling something unalienable is dangerous .And leaves the door open for ludicrous abuses. 

(February 19, 2018 at 6:01 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: Just because something written 143 years ago should be valid for eternity.

Alaska's right to bear arms was written just 23 years ago (in 1994).  So should it become invalid today?

"§ 19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]"
http://ltgov.alaska.gov/services/alaskas-constitution/

The right to a speedy jury trial (the 6th Amendment) was passed 226 years ago.  Should it become invalid tomorrow at 9 a.m. local time?  

What rights are you willing to give up for the delusion of being safe?  Would you be willing to become a slave for life if no one physically harmed you?  What about the rights for due process and against self-incrimination?  They are 228 years old.  Do you want to toss them?

"What rights are you willing to give up for the delusion of being safe?"

LOL, how about the right to the delusion of being safe? Guns don't make us safe. They kill us.

We're not really in danger. That's the big lie. Kids are not at constant risk. The threat of a mass shooting at a school pales in comparison to the threat of being hit by a car walking/biking to school. But there's no kids talking about how they are terrified to walk to school, because a car is going to hit them when they cross the street.
But because of the willingness of the media to let people draw the wrong conclusions, you'd never know that there is a super tiny amount of danger from gun violence at a school.

The whole thing is so phony. A bunch of teens and 20 somethings acting like their end is imminent. And then they pile into a civic, and do 95 down the free way while texting. There is a disconnect between what is presented as the real threat to their lives, and what's actually a threat to their lives that the media and adults who know better are complicit in letting them believe.

I think the whole gun control thing would be more compelling if so much of it wasn't disingenuous.