Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

haymarket · Oct 9, 2014

countryboy said:
Perhaps you should avail yourself of a dictionary if you have a low vocabulary. There are a number of great online versions.

I'll help you this time, but next time you'll have to look it up yourself.

Thank you for providing evidence that this belief in natural rights is indeed a self imposed willful belief that cannot be found outside of that same belief.

countryboy · Oct 9, 2014

haymarket said:
Thank you for providing evidence that this belief in natural rights is indeed a self imposed willful belief that cannot be found outside of that same belief.

As I said, normal, thinking people understand these things.

radcen · Oct 9, 2014

Bigfoot 88 said:
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.

Yes, take out the underlined part, it will make it more clear.

I wish that the 2nd Amendment had been phrased better so it would be more clear, but I do not trust today's politicians to open it up and work with it, so I do not favor changing anything about it.

radcen · Oct 9, 2014

Kal'Stang said:
No. The 2nd Amendment is just fine and quite clear.

It's the people that try to twist it to mean something different that cause the problems.

If it's so twistable, it's not clear. It's only clear to you because you have decided what you want it to mean... no different than those on the other side.

sawdust · Oct 9, 2014

countryboy said:
But it is not a right "granted" to us. It is an inherent right which is affirmed by the BOR.

I don't want to quibble because we agree about our support of the second. I know there is a belief that certain rights come from God and are inherent. Then I look at countries like China which has a one child policy and sanctions the killing of a second child should a couple have one. In China the right to life, which is the most inherent basic human right doesn't exist because the right isn't granted by the government. That's why the rule of law is so important and that our rights are protected in writing.

TurtleDude · Oct 9, 2014

Unrepresented said:
I'd be happy to have Germany or Japan's homicide rates, even if I don't want to adopt every aspect of their culture and society.

The fact that we don't believe we're capable of achieving things that nations with less resources are achieving bothers me.

How exactly do you intend to accurately determine the number of illegal gun owners?

well most of the murders committed in the USA (at least 80%) with handguns or other firearms are committed by people who cannot legally own guns ANY place in the USA and when you add places like Chicago and DC on top of that, the number is even higher

Montecresto · Oct 9, 2014

countryboy said:
There is nothing to interpret, it is as plain as day. The left only puts on a charade of "interpretation" to advance their tyrannical ideology.

If you don't like the 2A, why not change it Constitutionally? Why does the left always run to an activist court to get their way? Even when you lose at the ballot box.

Do stop with the hyperbole, it damages your pro second amendment position. For tyranny, see The Patriot Act or the NDAA.

Democrats for Gun Ownership is the only national association that provides support for those Democrats in favor of gun ownership and the defense of the Second Amendment.
Through campaign support, education, and advocacy DFGO works with Democrats at every level of our party in Congress to protect our rights and maintain a strong lobby base whose voices are clearly heard.

DfGO is a solid presence in Washington, D.C. supporting the rights of every American to arm him or herself with knowledge about responsible and safe firearms ownership. Send us an email with the name of your Congressperson and we'll drop by and say hello on your behalf. Help us make our Congress member aware that we're as engaged in policy matters as they should be.

The Senate gun control compromise failed, but that hasn’t stopped individual states from pursuing their own solutions. Connecticut, Colorado, New York and Maryland have passed new gun control laws, and joining them soon is New Jersey, where Governor Chris Christie has announced his support for a proposal to expand background checks for gun purchases, to require parental consent for minors to buy violent video games, to ban purchases of particular rifles, and to make it easier for courts and individuals to commit “potentially dangerous” people to mental health treatment against their will.

IOW, this shouldn't necessarily be framed in partisan terms.

TurtleDude · Oct 9, 2014

Montecresto said:
Do stop with the hyperbole, it damages your pro second amendment position. For tyranny, see The Patriot Act or the NDAA.

Democrats for Gun Ownership is the only national association that provides support for those Democrats in favor of gun ownership and the defense of the Second Amendment.
Through campaign support, education, and advocacy DFGO works with Democrats at every level of our party in Congress to protect our rights and maintain a strong lobby base whose voices are clearly heard.

DfGO is a solid presence in Washington, D.C. supporting the rights of every American to arm him or herself with knowledge about responsible and safe firearms ownership. Send us an email with the name of your Congressperson and we'll drop by and say hello on your behalf. Help us make our Congress member aware that we're as engaged in policy matters as they should be.

The Senate gun control compromise failed, but that hasn’t stopped individual states from pursuing their own solutions. Connecticut, Colorado, New York and Maryland have passed new gun control laws, and joining them soon is New Jersey, where Governor Chris Christie has announced his support for a proposal to expand background checks for gun purchases, to require parental consent for minors to buy violent video games, to ban purchases of particular rifles, and to make it easier for courts and individuals to commit “potentially dangerous” people to mental health treatment against their will.

IOW, this shouldn't necessarily be framed in partisan terms.

I admit, I have never heard of this group and I have been involved, intensely, in the opposition to gun banners for almost 40 years. I also note that a few years ago, a group known as the American Hunters and Shooters Association, was founded by democrat activists and pretended to be pro gun, when in reality it was another gun banning front run by people who had worked for the Brady thugs.

But I will review this group. I do note that Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland-as a freshman congressman in 1994, voted against the clinton gun ban while the man who later beat him in his re-election bid for governor-John Kasich, Caved in to Clinton and reversed his vote against the gun ban, allowing it to pass. and for years, John Dingell (D-Mich) was one of the strongest pro rights congressman in the country. But I also note that its the DNC that pushes every major attack on our 2A rights

Unrepresented · Oct 9, 2014

TurtleDude said:
well most of the murders committed in the USA (at least 80%) with handguns or other firearms are committed by people who cannot legally own guns ANY place in the USA and when you add places like Chicago and DC on top of that, the number is even higher

Illegally possessed handguns are guns that were once legally possessed. Reducing access to legal guns reduces access to illegal guns.

Unrepresented · Oct 9, 2014

RabidAlpaca said:
There is no correlation world-wide between gun ownership rate and total homicide rate.

The image you quoted shows the exact opposite, at least among developed countries.

RabidAlpaca said:
Our problem is poverty, plain and simple. If it weren't, homicide rates would follow the guns and not the poverty. The inner city in many cities isn't dangerous because of the number of guns, it's dangerous because of the immense poverty and desperation people live in.

I'm more than happy to reduce poverty too.

RabidAlpaca said:
Many people want to take a complex, human problem and try to oversimplify it into blaming inanimate objects. It completely ignores the entire context of the situation and cherry picks to fit a predetermined goal. Having a gun does not make you want to commit crime, being unable to put food on your family's table does.

Having a gun enhances your ability to commit a crime. The same way we have laws against drug paraphernalia or lock picking tools, guns -- handguns especially -- are tools to commit acts of violence against another citizen.

Montecresto · Oct 9, 2014

TurtleDude said:
I admit, I have never heard of this group and I have been involved, intensely, in the opposition to gun banners for almost 40 years. I also note that a few years ago, a group known as the American Hunters and Shooters Association, was founded by democrat activists and pretended to be pro gun, when in reality it was another gun banning front run by people who had worked for the Brady thugs.

But I will review this group. I do note that Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland-as a freshman congressman in 1994, voted against the clinton gun ban while the man who later beat him in his re-election bid for governor-John Kasich, Caved in to Clinton and reversed his vote against the gun ban, allowing it to pass. and for years, John Dingell (D-Mich) was one of the strongest pro rights congressman in the country. But I also note that its the DNC that pushes every major attack on our 2A rights

Well, if you wish to frame responsibility with "attack" I would point out that Chris Christi is in the GOP, I notice you didn't comment on that part of my post. Btw, not politicians, just individuals, do you really not know democrats that support our 2nd amendment? I've been in the deer woulds a lot the last couple of weeks, every bodies getting things ready for season here. Cleaning cabins, checking buck scrapes, feeders, tracks etc. Around the fire at deer camp, there's always lively political discussions, and there's plenty of lefties in the woods. While I disagree with people that advocate certain restrictions and bans, and I mean individuals, advocacy groups, etc., not politicians, I truly don't believe it has anything to do with tyranny. But rather people genuinely frustrated over the Aurora's and Sandy Hooks, and think that less or no guns is the answer to those problems. But I don't think they are evil, wicked, tyrants or against the people's Bill of Rights.

Guys like you and I see it differently. Put another way, it's not unlike the numbers of Americans willing to sacrifice certain liberties to be secure from terrorism. Despite the fact that more Americans have died from bee stings and lightning strikes then terrorist attacks, things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA find passage due to people's fear.

Montecresto · Oct 9, 2014

Unrepresented said:
Illegally possessed handguns are guns that were once legally possessed. Reducing access to legal guns reduces access to illegal guns.

Why would we want to reduce access to "legal" anything. Btw, do you think that the police and military should have guns?

Montecresto · Oct 9, 2014

Unrepresented said:
The image you quoted shows the exact opposite, at least among developed countries.

I'm more than happy to reduce poverty too.

Having a gun enhances your ability to commit a crime. The same way we have laws against drug paraphernalia or lock picking tools, guns -- handguns especially -- are tools to commit acts of violence against another citizen.

The bolded! Sometimes yes, and sometimes, they're used to prevent crimes. There is no end in sight to a list one could compile of things, inanimate objects that have both good and evil uses. Should they all be restricted or banned.

Montecresto · Oct 9, 2014

Unrepresented said:
I'm happy to adopt a system more like the UK. Less guns means less gun deaths.

IOW, you wouldn't just support amending the 2nd amendment, but expunging it from the Bill of Rights?

Kal'Stang · Oct 9, 2014

radcen said:
If it's so twistable, it's not clear. It's only clear to you because you have decided what you want it to mean... no different than those on the other side.

Wrong. I can twist pretty much anything into a dirty minded sex joke if I wanted, including what you said here. Doesn't mean that what you said here isn't clear. (and no, i'm not going to demonstrate, wrong thread for such) If I can twist such for fun, people can certainly purposely twist anything that they want in order to push an agenda.

radcen · Oct 9, 2014

Kal'Stang said:
Wrong. I can twist pretty much anything into a dirty minded sex joke if I wanted, including what you said here. Doesn't mean that what you said here isn't clear. (and no, i'm not going to demonstrate, wrong thread for such) If I can twist such for fun, people can certainly purposely twist anything that they want in order to push an agenda.

You may continue to kid yourself all you want, but we're not talking jokes and such. We're talking legal standards and decisions, stuff that is taken seriously. If people... and courts... disagree to the point that they do, the writing is unclear. Get over it.

Deuce · Oct 9, 2014

Montecresto said:
Why would we want to reduce access to "legal" anything. Btw, do you think that the police and military should have guns?

Pretend plutonium was legal to own outside of specific scientific uses. Why would you want to reduce access to "legal" plutonium?

Kal'Stang · Oct 9, 2014

radcen said:
You may continue to kid yourself all you want, but we're not talking jokes and such. We're talking legal standards and decisions, stuff that is taken seriously. If people... and courts... disagree to the point that they do, the writing is unclear. Get over it.

Just because its serious stuff doesn't mean that people won't twist. And being a judge does not make one immune to twisting. Look what happened with the Obamacare Mandate. They passed it on the grounds that it was a "tax" when its not. It's a fine. In particular a fine for not buying a product from a private business. That was done through twisting, by judges.

Unrepresented · Oct 9, 2014

Montecresto said:
The bolded! Sometimes yes, and sometimes, they're used to prevent crimes. There is no end in sight to a list one could compile of things, inanimate objects that have both good and evil uses. Should they all be restricted or banned.

Handguns are tools for violence and threats of violence against other humans.

Amended for you.

Montecresto said:
IOW, you wouldn't just support amending the 2nd amendment, but expunging it from the Bill of Rights?

Depends on which reading we're using. I'd reduce the individual's right to access weapons, yes.

Montecresto · Oct 9, 2014

Deuce said:
Pretend plutonium was legal to own outside of specific scientific uses. Why would you want to reduce access to "legal" plutonium?

Well if you want to play pretend...............

Montecresto · Oct 9, 2014

Unrepresented said:
Handguns are tools for violence and threats of violence against other humans.

Amended for you.

Depends on which reading we're using. I'd reduce the individual's right to access weapons, yes.

"Reduce"???? Care to elaborate on that? And what do you mean, "which reading"? Is there more then one version of the second amendment?

Unrepresented · Oct 9, 2014

Montecresto said:
Well if you want to play pretend...............

It's an analogy. It's how you compare things.

Montecresto said:
"Reduce"???? Care to elaborate on that? And what do you mean, "which reading"? Is there more then one version of the second amendment?

Yes. The NRA isn't the only body that can interpret law.

"The Second Amendment provides: "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."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in*"United States v. Miller"*was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in*"D.C. v. Heller"*held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions."

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

Jerry · Oct 9, 2014

mdw99 said:
I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks

If the 2nd were to be changed, I would change it to "Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the People to keep and bear arms." This closely reflects the 1st Amendment and my intent would be to have the gun in your pocket as accessible and protected as the cell phone in your other pocket.

Montecresto · Oct 9, 2014

Unrepresented said:
It's an analogy. It's how you compare things.

Yes. The NRA isn't the only body that can interpret law.

"The Second Amendment provides: "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."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in*"United States v. Miller"*was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in*"D.C. v. Heller"*held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions."

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

Well I agree with you that the collective right is a strong argument. But the individual right is equally strong and therefore IMO, both should be advanced.

Willie Orwontee · Oct 9, 2014

Unrepresented said:
Yes. The NRA isn't the only body that can interpret law.

"The Second Amendment provides: "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."
ACLU POSITION

. . . In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in*"D.C. v. Heller"*held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

Except for where the Court recognized the individual right to bear arms for individual self defense from the KKK by two former slaves, then US citizens in 1873 Louisiana, a state that at the time had no organized militia, it being disbanded by Congress . . .

But hey, who's really reading the opinion of the Court?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Yes

No

Not sure

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Undisclosed

Undisclosed

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Outer space potato man

Undisclosed

Undisclosed