Gun Owners are their own worst enemy

[eric/]

Originally Posted by samiwas

I'm pretty sure that if I was to go hard core underground into some terror cells, it's remotely possible. But yes, pretty much impossible.

Yeah and maybe aliens exist.

The fact is that you can't get one, whether it's legal to own or not.

Originally Posted by samiwas

And hence the point of my statement, which again was not understood.

My first test was to see whether you agreed to it in principle/philosophically, because you're all about teh anarchy and the no limits on freedom/libertee thing. The second was to see whether you disagreed in practicality.

You babble incessantly about "arbitrary limits" and how you can't set them because that defies logic and order, or something to that effect. Where is the limit between gun and nuclear bomb? Somewhere between the two, or maybe even before either, is when it becomes unacceptable. What is that limit to you? What is the limit in society?

And once you have decided that limit, assuming you can or will, explain why we can't use the same decision process for any and all laws, gun control included.

"teh anarchy"? "babble"

When you decide to stop talking down to me, I'll engage you in discussion. Otherwise I'm not going to waste my time.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by eric/

That's an arbitrary limit, yet again. And if that's the case, then you can arbitrarily ban anything from alcohol to sports bikes, to gay marriage, and you have to accept that as the logical conclusion of your position. You can say gay marriage doesn't harm anybody, sure, but it doesn't matter, because this is all arbitrary and anybody can just make up whatever they want to justify banning it.

Sure, in the past that has been true. Women were denied rights, blacks were denied rights and today gays are denied rights. But ultimately what has and is changing that is the standard that there needs to be tangible proof to deny these rights, otherwise there is no cause to do so.

Do you believe there is no proof that the number and availability of guns in the U.S. contributes to the amount of gun violence in this nation?

Originally Posted by eric/

One stupid school shooting, and everybody is ready to ban assault rifles ...

It's far more than one. Please be honest enough to admit that.

Originally Posted by eric/

but god forbid anybody raise a peep about increasing our mental health care, or even banning handguns, ya know, the two greatest contributors to firearm related death in this country.

Who's against better mental healthcare? Certainly not me.

Improve it and let's see what the effect is. Then we'll talk.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Sure, in the past that has been true. Women were denied rights, blacks were denied rights and today gays are denied rights. But ultimately what has and is changing that is the standard that there needs to be tangible proof to deny these rights, otherwise there is no cause to do so.

Ok, what about fast food? sports vehicles? alcohol? cigarettes?

You're still saying that it's ok to die by these means, but not ok to die by guns.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Do you believe there is no proof that the number and availability of guns in the U.S. contributes to the amount of gun violence in this nation?

Well it has to simply because it exists, but I don't think that gun initiate violence. For me, the problem stems from other issues, such as social inequality, and the war on drugs.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It's far more than one. Please be honest enough to admit that.

A couple? A dozen at most? Either way, it is an outlier, it's not the norm. People getting shot in the ghetto is the norm.

School shootings are tragic, devastating. I hate it. But the fact of the matter is that no matter how horrible that is, it rarely ever happens. What happens routinely, is people are shot and killed with handguns, in cities, most likely involving drugs.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Who's against better mental healthcare? Certainly not me.

Improve it and let's see what the effect is. Then we'll talk.

Well it's kind of hard to focus on that kind of stuff, which we both agree needs work, when your beginning position is to start off by banning things that I don't agree should be banned without first trying to fix the issue by other means.

I think that we need to work on our healthcare, we need to close gun show loopholes, not close gun shows, but the loopholes, and we need to work on stopping inner-city gun violence. I also think that we need to make sure that those who are sold a firearm for concealed carry purposes are proficient with that weapon. I'm also fine with maintaining a non-public database of weapon owners.

But if the discussion always revolves around taking away assault rifles, and 30 round clips, then we're never going to actually get around to solving the underlying problem, and instead we're going to strip away ownership of things from people who have never harmed a fly.

[diazj3]

Originally Posted by eric/

But the problem with this argument, is that you have a very small number of individuals breaking the law, whom are harming "society". By and large, the vast majority of firearm owners never commit a crime, or even hurt themselves.

So why should they be punished for the sins of others?

Wow... the same case can be made for anything - from seat belts and motorcycle helmets, to alcohol, cigarettes and drugs... to nuclear and biological weapons.

Here, lets try it:

• By and large, the vast majority of [countries with nuclear or biological weapons] never [used them], or even hurt themselves. So why should they be punished for the sins of others?

• By and large, the vast majority of [helmetless motorcyclists] never [had an accident], or even hurt themselves. So why should they be punished for the sins of others?

• By and large, the vast majority of [drunk drivers] never [crashed], or even hurt themselves. So why should they be punished for the sins of others?

You see?

It's not a matter of empty statistics, but of social risk, utility and regulation...

[eric/]

Originally Posted by diazj3

Wow... the same case can be made for anything - from seat belts and motorcycle helmets, to alcohol, cigarettes and drugs... to nuclear and biological weapons.

Here, lets try it:

• By and large, the vast majority of [countries with nuclear or biological weapons] never [used them], or even hurt themselves. So why should they be punished for the sins of others?

• By and large, the vast majority of [helmetless motorcyclists] never [had an accident], or even hurt themselves. So why should they be punished for the sins of others?

• By and large, the vast majority of [drunk drivers] never [crashed], or even hurt themselves. So why should they be punished for the sins of others?

You see?

It's not a matter of empty statistics, but of social risk, utility and regulation...

Each one of those points you bring up, involve use of public goods, such as the roads.

Owning a gun requires none of that, in fact, there are rules for carrying your gun in your own car on public roads.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by eric/

When you decide to stop talking down to me, I'll engage you in discussion. Otherwise I'm not going to waste my time.

Forgive me. My hubris precedes me. Let me try again...

You intelligently articulate your position about "arbitrary limits" and how you can't set them because that defies logic and order, or at least that is what I understand. Where is the limit between gun and nuclear bomb? Somewhere between the two, or maybe even before either, is when it becomes unacceptable. What is that limit to you? What is the limit in society?

And once you have decided that limit, assuming that there is one, explain why we can't use the same decision process for any and all laws, gun control included.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Forgive me. My hubris precedes me. Let me try again...

You intelligently articulate your position about "arbitrary limits" and how you can't set them because that defies logic and order, or at least that is what I understand. Where is the limit between gun and nuclear bomb? Somewhere between the two, or maybe even before either, is when it becomes unacceptable. What is that limit to you? What is the limit in society?

And once you have decided that limit, assuming that there is one, explain why we can't use the same decision process for any and all laws, gun control included.

Thank you.

I don't think there is a limit, philosophically, because arbitrary limits have no objective basis. But practically, there is a limit simply because defense companies would just never sell you one. And of course our government, in fear would never allow any private individual to own a nuclear bomb.

Furthermore, in practicality I don't think you can ever use a nuclear bomb defensively, or in a manner to protect yourself from those that would cause you harm. You can with guns, in a practical manner. Now I know we can sit here and invent hypothetical situations in which you could somehow use a nuclear bomb to ward off somebody trying to rob your house or whatever, but it's absurd.

but even if we entertain the idea that we want to set limits as a society, they would undoubtably be based on some sort of reason, I would hope. If that's the case, then it's plain to see that vehemently going after assault rifles and 30 round clips does not provide the most social utility, because in the matter of deaths caused by firearms, they are the lowest of the low.

There are much more fruitful means of reducing firearms deaths. But starting with banning assault rifles and 30 round clips is simply a political talking point, and not a useful solution.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by eric/

Furthermore, in practicality I don't think you can ever use a nuclear bomb defensively, or in a manner to protect yourself from those that would cause you harm.

See World War II.

Karl Taylor Compton was a prominent American physicist and president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from 1930 to 1948.

In 1945, Compton was selected as one of eight members of the Interim Committee appointed to advise President Harry S. Truman on the use of the atomic bomb. When Japan surrendered in 1945, World War II came to an end and Compton left the OSRD. In 1946, Compton chaired the President's Advisory Commission on Military Training. From 1946 to 1948, he was a member of the Naval Research Advisory Committee. Compton chaired the Joint Research and Development Board from 1948 to 1949, when he stepped down for health reasons.

Excerpts from The Atlantic Monthly, December 1946 ...

If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used
by Karl T. Compton

It is easy now, after the event, to look back and say that Japan was already a beaten nation, and to ask what therefore was the justification for the use of the atomic bomb to kill so many thousands of helpless Japanese in this inhuman way; furthermore, should we not better have kept it to ourselves as a secret weapon for future use, if necessary? This argument has been advanced often, but it seems to me utterly fallacious.

I had, perhaps, an unusual opportunity to know the pertinent facts from several angles, yet I was without responsibility for any of the decisions. I can therefore speak without doing so defensively. While my role in the atomic bomb development was a very minor one, I was a member of the group called together by Secretary of War Stimson to assist him in plans for its test, use, and subsequent handling. Then, shortly before Hiroshima, I became attached to General MacArthur in Manila, and lived for two months with his staff. In this way I learned something of the invasion plans and of the sincere conviction of these best-informed officers that a desperate and costly struggle was still ahead. Finally, I spent the first month after V-J Day in Japan, where I could ascertain at first hand both the physical and the psychological state of that country. Some of the Japanese whom I consulted were my scientific and personal friends of long standing.

From this background I believe, with complete conviction, that the use of the atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands—perhaps several millions—of lives, both American and Japanese; that without its use the war would have continued for many months; that no one of good conscience knowing, as Secretary Stimson and the Chiefs of Staff did, what was probably ahead and what the atomic bomb might accomplish could have made any different decision.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs...ec/compton.htm

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by eric/

Furthermore, in practicality I don't think you can ever use a nuclear bomb defensively, or in a manner to protect yourself from those that would cause you harm. You can with guns, in a practical manner. Now I know we can sit here and invent hypothetical situations in which you could somehow use a nuclear bomb to ward off somebody trying to rob your house or whatever, but it's absurd.

Thank you for throwing the word "think" in there. It's what I was hoping for. You don't think I can use a nuclear bomb for defense, because it's ridiculous (obviously). Just as I don't think anyone needs ten semi-automatic guns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, 30-round clips, or any such crap for self defense.

And that's the thing: we think. And thinking leads to decisions. And since we live in a country with over 300 million people, we make decisions to enact laws that are for the best of society. You can't have nuclear bombs because it's against the law, as it should be. But, it IS against your liberty to not be able to obtain one. But, I can't think of one single person who would ever say that freedom is more important than banning the sale and purchase of nuclear bombs. It's in everyone's best interest that they are not available. And maybe, just maybe, it's also in everyone's best interest that high-capacity magazines and certain types of weapons aren't available.

Opinion Time:
People can keep saying it's about liberty and about self defense... It's about the toys.
/Opinion Time

Now...for the toys. If there were some way to have high capacity magazines available at heavily secured ranges for people to go get their rocks off shooting, and which could not be taken off the range, with some sort of voodoo security that somehow prevented employees from taking them...then I say go for it. But, for personal consumption...nope.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Thank you for throwing the word "think" in there. It's what I was hoping for. You don't think I can use a nuclear bomb for defense, because it's ridiculous (obviously). Just as I don't think anyone needs ten semi-automatic guns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, 30-round clips, or any such crap for self defense.

but you can use those weapons for self defense. Even if you don't use them for that, simply owning them and admiring them or whatever does not violate any single individual right. The same can be said for a nuclear bomb, I suppose, but the idea is so absurd that it's not worth even discussing, to be honest.

Let me clarify, you can't use a nuclear weapon for self defense. And you certainly can't do so without violating the rights of others.

Originally Posted by samiwas

And that's the thing: we think. And thinking leads to decisions. And since we live in a country with over 300 million people, we make decisions to enact laws that are for the best of society. You can't have nuclear bombs because it's against the law, as it should be. But, it IS against your liberty to not be able to obtain one. But, I can't think of one single person who would ever say that freedom is more important than banning the sale and purchase of nuclear bombs. It's in everyone's best interest that they are not available. And maybe, just maybe, it's also in everyone's best interest that high-capacity magazines and certain types of weapons aren't available.

Well, as long as you admit that such restrictions are arbitrary violations of liberty, that's fine. I just want people to acknowledge that there is no actual basis for what they want to ban.

Personally, I think freedom is more important than banning nuclear bombs. Partly because there is no way you can get one even if they are available, and partly because you can't possibly maintain one unless you're among the super rich.

Originally Posted by samiwas

Opinion Time:
People can keep saying it's about liberty and about self defense... It's about the toys.
/Opinion Time

Now...for the toys. If there were some way to have high capacity magazines available at heavily secured ranges for people to go get their rocks off shooting, and which could not be taken off the range, with some sort of voodoo security that somehow prevented employees from taking them...then I say go for it. But, for personal consumption...nope.

Again, you are looking at the wrong issues. high capacity magazines, and assault rifles, are the lowest of the lowest of the low when it comes to violence associated with firearms. You're chasing a ghost, based on politics and emotion.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, as long as you admit that such restrictions are arbitrary violations of liberty, that's fine. I just want people to acknowledge that there is no actual basis for what they want to ban.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "actual basis".

It's not as if I'll leave this discussion thinking this whole argument is just philosophical.

There are tangible consequences involved here.

That—in my book—is the "actual basis" upon which my argument rests.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I guess it depends on what you mean by "actual basis".

It's not as if I'll leave this discussion thinking this whole argument is just philosophical.

There are tangible consequences involved here.

That—in my book—is the "actual basis" upon which my argument rests.

meh, I don't really think it's productive to discuss anything else. We can argue the law all day, and neither of us will "be correct" because the law is just man made and subject to change, and based on whims, mostly.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by zioxide

These ridiculous comparison attempts need to stop.

Guns are designed to kill. Their only use is killing.


A house is designed and used for living in. A bike is for sport or transportation.

Trying to compare things like these to a weapon that has one use, KILLING, is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. The more I see this ludicrous crap the more I tend to lean towards the belief that no civilians should be allowed to own a device that's sole purpose is to kill, especially if this is the mentality of the people who want to own these things.

Please do a little research so you don't sound like a total crackpot. Killing is not the only use for a gun. I have several that have had hundreds....no THOUSANDS of rounds put through them and they have NEVER killed anyone or anything. And as long as I own them, probably never will.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Now...for the toys. If there were some way to have high capacity magazines available at heavily secured ranges for people to go get their rocks off shooting, and which could not be taken off the range, with some sort of voodoo security that somehow prevented employees from taking them...then I say go for it. But, for personal consumption...nope.

Some food for thought....

High capacity mags were not banned, people owned them.

Then they got banned...NEW ones. People that owned them already could still keep them.

The ban was lifted and people bought LOTS of them.

Now talk of re-banning the sales of high capacity mags and they are sold out....everywhere. They are flying off the shelves.

So what will banning them do...really? There are probably millions of these things in the hands of the public with no way to know who has them. You can't get them back. They are out there.

Banning them now....WILL NOT....prevent another Sandy Hook.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Banning them now....WILL NOT....prevent another Sandy Hook.

The U.S. is awash in firearms ... far more than any other nation on Earth.

And because of that, any solution, whether it's restrictions, more stringent background checks, etc., will take many, many years to bear any significant impact on the number of arms available or the people who have access to them.

That is a consequence we will have to endure as a nation.

No measure can prevent another mass shooting from happening. There are too many guns in the hands of lunatics and too many targets tempting them to murder. My goal—as an advocate for stricter gun restrictions—is for a gradual decline in deaths over a long period of time.

That, IMO, is the most we can realistically hope for.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Some food for thought....

High capacity mags were not banned, people owned them.

Then they got banned...NEW ones. People that owned them already could still keep them.

The ban was lifted and people bought LOTS of them.

Now talk of re-banning the sales of high capacity mags and they are sold out....everywhere. They are flying off the shelves.

So what will banning them do...really? There are probably millions of these things in the hands of the public with no way to know who has them. You can't get them back. They are out there.

Banning them now....WILL NOT....prevent another Sandy Hook.

And it WILL NOT make anyone safer to have them, either. So, I honestly don't care. I have less interest in guns than I do barnacles on the bottom of a retired cargo ship. Never owned one and hopefully never will. If guns magically didn't exist tomorrow, my life would be exactly the same, nay better.

In the end, I think the US screwed it all up. We are past the point of no return, and we should just accept that we are a gun-loving country and that guns will continue to pervade our society with 30,000+ senseless deaths per year, whether those deaths are homicide, suicide, accidental, or in self defense. I don't see how anyone can say that the US way is the right way or that more guns is the answer.

[northernbaldy]

I vote to let you all keep killing eachother

[63dot]

Originally Posted by glocke12

3) Gun owners are unwilling to compromise. I and a few other recognize the need for background checks, no sales to people with a history of violence or diagnosed mental illness, and maybe even mandatory training and safety courses for first time gun buyers. However many more feel that the Second Amendment should have no limitations, this includes no background checks, guns for mentally ill people, etc...some compromise is needed.

On this last point I am with you about background checks, personal histories, and training. If people who believed in the right to bear arms like me, and I assume you, said these three things you mentioned, the 2nd amendment would be safe.

However, the nuts who want to own a military arsenal and carry a Ranger division (including the right to chemical and biological weapons) with them everywhere they go ruin it for everybody. In law school we looked at the grey area of the legality of the sale and ownership of a Soviet aircraft carrier on eBay, and some conservative justices push for the OK for a single person to have no limitations and potentially have as many guns as a nation (if they have the funds and acquire them legally). While it doesn't make sense to have an aircraft carrier (still legal) and a Sherman tank, non-military entities (people and businesses) may continue to have a lot of weapons. When I was the gun salesperson at Big 5, it was recognized as the largest gun dealer in the world at the time that only 4 entities had more guns and those were standing armies of nations. Nobody came after us but maybe the debate should look at the sales of guns. We had so many guns lying around they were stashed in the public john we had for the customers!

[eric/]

Originally Posted by samiwas

And it WILL NOT make anyone safer to have them, either. So, I honestly don't care.

Owning all sorts of things makes you less safe. Living in Florida makes you less safe from hurricanes.

Originally Posted by samiwas

I have less interest in guns than I do barnacles on the bottom of a retired cargo ship. Never owned one and hopefully never will. If guns magically didn't exist tomorrow, my life would be exactly the same, nay better.

And there lies the problem. I think if you had experience with firearms you would be able to offer a much more informed opinion, and understand some of the arguments instead of just going with talking points.

Originally Posted by samiwas

In the end, I think the US screwed it all up. We are past the point of no return, and we should just accept that we are a gun-loving country and that guns will continue to pervade our society with 30,000+ senseless deaths per year, whether those deaths are homicide, suicide, accidental, or in self defense. I don't see how anyone can say that the US way is the right way or that more guns is the answer.

I don't see how anybody could say that not letting private citizens own guns is the right way to go. Even more so arbitrarily defining what guns they can own.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Thank you for throwing the word "think" in there. It's what I was hoping for. You don't think I can use a nuclear bomb for defense, because it's ridiculous (obviously). Just as I don't think anyone needs ten semi-automatic guns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, 30-round clips, or any such crap for self defense.

Unless we change the original intent of the 2nd amendment, those guns are OK. We are a proud nation who won our independence because our citizens could be armed.

If we are talking about self-defense in the context of your person or home, then those guns are a little overkill. But if we are talking about being able to form militias and repel invaders, then those guns are just fine and I would argue we should have even fewer limitations.

But then let's look at the reality of 2013 versus the late 18th century:

What does the 2nd read versus how it is currently interpreted by some conservative justices?

Are militias necessary when we have our armed forces, reserves, National Guard units, and cops?

And in the 21st century what is the likelihood that we will be invaded and that individual gun owners would make a difference in an age of jets, biological, and chemical weapons?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by 63dot

What does the 2nd read versus how it is currently interpreted by some conservative justices? Are militias necessary when we have our armed forces, reserves, National Guard units, and cops? And in the 21st century what is the likelihood that we will be invaded and that individual gun owners would make a difference in an age of jets, biological, and chemical weapons?

Unknown certainty. I always say, prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by eric/

Unknown certainty. I always say, prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

From what we studied in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers in law school, it was clear in the context of the late 18th century that it was about the major threat of Britain invading our shores. The thought of somebody else, like France, was a ridiculous theory.

To break it down simply, we were largely farmers who knew how to hunt and could work a gun. Our personal guns were not all that far behind the state of the art military guns of the British army. And without the need for large units and tons of equipment, it was possible to have those gun worthy farmers pose a real resistance to a landing British army in a relative short period of time.

Keep in context that the British, or any other navy, had limited ships with limited capacity and nobody could launch a D-Day scale assault.

If we are to reinterpret the 2nd amendment and push for a rewrite more in the context of personal protection (versus farmers forming militias to repel the British empire), that should be done.

I don't think the militia concept is key here these days and personally, I call for small arms to be owned by individual people to protect themselves and their property.

I don't think we need military grade guns and highly trained militias ready for a major attack with rallying areas and a clear chain of command. This may work for some other nations within a different context but our 2nd should reflect personal use instead of forming a defacto standing army on short notice.

That being said, as the decades and centuries morph our situation, we may once again need militias and be worrying about England invading our shores but as of now the last time the British invaded was just so long ago if you don't count John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by 63dot

But then let's look at the reality of 2013 versus the late 18th century:

Well counselor does this hold true also, that the First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the second only applies to muskets? Hugh..

[eric/]

Originally Posted by 63dot

If we are to reinterpret the 2nd amendment and push for a rewrite more in the context of personal protection (versus farmers forming militias to repel the British empire), that should be done.

I don't think it's a good idea to set precedent to rewrite amendments.

Originally Posted by 63dot

I don't think the militia concept is key here these days and personally, I call for small arms to be owned by individual people to protect themselves and their property.

I don't think we need military grade guns and highly trained militias ready for a major attack with rallying areas and a clear chain of command. This may work for some other nations within a different context but our 2nd should reflect personal use instead of forming a defacto standing army on short notice.

What do you think the national guard was supposed to be.

And military grade (whatever that means) weapons aren't available to the public, and you certainly can't tell people what they can and can't prepare for.

Originally Posted by 63dot

That being said, as the decades and centuries morph our situation, we may once again need militias and be worrying about England invading our shores but as of now the last time the British invaded was just so long ago if you don't count John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

Yeah it's cute, fun, and trendy to poke fun at the idea of the US being invaded, or some other sort of conflict requiring citizens needing weapons, but all such comments are fruitless. You don't know the future. Period. You can't say with any degree of certainty whether or not such militias may or may not be needed. So you can certainly enjoy coming up with clever ways of making fun of the idea of a big time war in the US, but just remember that those claims are nothing more than baseless claims. I think it's equally silly that there would be any sort of invasion, for what it's worth.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Well counselor does this hold true also, that the First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the second only applies to muskets? Hugh..

In the context of when our founding fathers were furiously trying to form a nation, only what applied at the time was relevant.

Even among parties who generally agreed on the same concepts, some insane infighting resulted and some pretty serious mud slinging. Anyway, it's worth a Google and shows that dirty politics, ala 2013 DC stuff, is not entirely new. (dirty politics, founding fathers).

When opponents couldn't attack a position, they would go after spouses, children, personal beliefs, and even personal sexual orientation. Educated men and leaders went so far as calling opponents possessed by the devil or an agent of the British empire.

We can't extrapolate the 2nd too far without eventually needing more amendments.

In the context of a new nation, it was necessary to have an economy with slavery which was then considered another component of the economy. As we moved into the next century, this became a major issue and a new amendment was written to reflect changes. When change happens, new amendments sprout up. The founding fathers could not have anticipated what would happen 250 years later.