If you could vote on a new gun-amendment, second version

[Peter King]

There is already one poll but this one will read a bit different. These laws will only be applicable to law abiding citizens and people with non-voilent/non drugs related felony convictions) and all body armor for non-law enforcement will be prohibited.

If there would be a vote with the next presidential elections to amend the second amendment, what would you vote for:

Option one: The second amendment stays as is, with no gun restricting laws whatsoever

Option two: The second amendment is kept in place with some restrictions, notably, all gun owners must register their guns (even ones bought at gun shows or when bought from non-professional gun sellers).

Option three: The second amendment is kept in place with more restrictions, the first is all guns must be registered (as in option 2) but now people may only carry hidden guns with a permit and automatic guns/assault weapons are banned unless one shows a legitimate reason to own one.

Option four: The second amendment is kept in place with numerous restrictions, in addition to the ones described in option three (registration, ban on hidden guns, severe restrictions on automatic guns/assault weapons) but added to that are that states can make even more restrictive gun laws when it comes to number of bullets in clips, a ban on guns in public areas (shops, restaurants, etc.) but still allows for everyone to own a gun if they should desire to own one.

Option five: The second amendment is seriously re-written and in it's place comes a law that allows weapons only in the house/own property except for people who need to carry a gun at all times, hunters and security firms. States can make exceptions and make the gun laws more liberal so that the gun laws are relaxed. But all in the country the restrictive rules stated in option four (registration, ban on hidden guns, severe restriction on assault/automatic guns, gun clip size) will be enforced.

Option six: The second amendment is scrapped and gun ownership is seriously restricted to only people who have a proven need for a guns like farmers, people with realistic security needs (shop owners, home owners on their own property) and then only guns/shotguns will be allowed. All guns must be registered and you need a permit to own a gun, carrying your weapon outside your own property will be illegal, there will be a maximum number of guns allowed per property (1 weapon for everyone about the age of 16 who lives in the house plus 3 extra guns),

Option seven: other, namely.......

Take your pic

 

[lizzie]

My vote would be to keep the 2nd as is, and ease up on restrictions currently in place.

 

[Wiseone]

I don't like these options either, it again proposes something completely unrealistic which is a national gun registry. It may be possible to build such a database from new sales, but it will exclude most of the guns already out there. I wouldn't vote for something I think couldn't work and I wouldn't vote for total absence of any regulation.

 

[Peter King]

I deceided other because I cannot vote but my opinion is "as few guns as possible".

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Option two: The second amendment is kept in place with some restrictions, notably, all gun owners must register their guns (even ones bought at gun shows or when bought from non-professional gun sellers).

Option three: The second amendment is kept in place with more restrictions, the first is all guns must be registered (as in option 2) but now people may only carry hidden guns with a permit and automatic guns/assault weapons are banned unless one shows a legitimate reason to own one.

Option four: The second amendment is kept in place with numerous restrictions, in addition to the ones described in option three (registration, ban on hidden guns, severe restrictions on automatic guns/assault weapons) but added to that are that states can make even more restrictive gun laws when it comes to number of bullets in clips, a ban on guns in public areas (shops, restaurants, etc.) but still allows for everyone to own a gun if they should desire to own one.

None of these options are valid.

If the Second Amendment is kept in place, and if it is obeyed, then none of the restrictions which you list here can be allowed, as all of them blatantly violate the Second Amendment.

The only reason that any restrictions currently exist on this right is that our government has grown severely corrupt, and refuses to obey the Constitution with regard to the people's right to keep and bear arms

 

[Peter King]

None of these options are valid.

If the Second Amendment is kept in place, and if it is obeyed, then none of the restrictions which you list here can be allowed, as all of them blatantly violate the Second Amendment.

The only reason that any restrictions currently exist on this right is that our government has grown severely corrupt, and refuses to obey the Constitution with regard to the people's right to keep and bear arms

None of these options are valid? So option one, The second amendment stays as is, with no gun restricting laws whatsoever is not valid according to you?

I said if you could vote on a new gun-amendment. A new amendment in my poll could be anything people want.

Also, reasonable restrictions like waiting periods and background checks do not violate the second amendment IMHO. Governments also have the right and duty to protect their population. Reasonable gun control falls under the heading: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

That is the same reason for which keeping guns out of the hands of criminals/convicted is justified, to establish justice, domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare.

 

[Peter King]

I don't like these options either, it again proposes something completely unrealistic which is a national gun registry. It may be possible to build such a database from new sales, but it will exclude most of the guns already out there. I wouldn't vote for something I think couldn't work and I wouldn't vote for total absence of any regulation.

The options aren't there for general "liking" but to find out what people's views about gun control is. Realism is not an issue because voting for a new second amendment is not likely or maybe not even possible.

And a national gun registry is possible, just make it mandatory for everybody to register every gun that they own and you get a gun registry. If they get caught with an unregistered gun they can get a warning first and a fine for further unregistered guns found in their possession. And if you do not like the other options you can go for "option seven, other, namely.........".

 

[DVSentinel]

There is already one poll but this one will read a bit different. These laws will only be applicable to law abiding citizens and people with non-voilent/non drugs related felony convictions) and all body armor for non-law enforcement will be prohibited.

If there would be a vote with the next presidential elections to amend the second amendment, what would you vote for:

Option one: The second amendment stays as is, with no gun restricting laws whatsoever

Option two: The second amendment is kept in place with some restrictions, notably, all gun owners must register their guns (even ones bought at gun shows or when bought from non-professional gun sellers).

Option three: The second amendment is kept in place with more restrictions, the first is all guns must be registered (as in option 2) but now people may only carry hidden guns with a permit and automatic guns/assault weapons are banned unless one shows a legitimate reason to own one.

Option four: The second amendment is kept in place with numerous restrictions, in addition to the ones described in option three (registration, ban on hidden guns, severe restrictions on automatic guns/assault weapons) but added to that are that states can make even more restrictive gun laws when it comes to number of bullets in clips, a ban on guns in public areas (shops, restaurants, etc.) but still allows for everyone to own a gun if they should desire to own one.

Option five: The second amendment is seriously re-written and in it's place comes a law that allows weapons only in the house/own property except for people who need to carry a gun at all times, hunters and security firms. States can make exceptions and make the gun laws more liberal so that the gun laws are relaxed. But all in the country the restrictive rules stated in option four (registration, ban on hidden guns, severe restriction on assault/automatic guns, gun clip size) will be enforced.

Option six: The second amendment is scrapped and gun ownership is seriously restricted to only people who have a proven need for a guns like farmers, people with realistic security needs (shop owners, home owners on their own property) and then only guns/shotguns will be allowed. All guns must be registered and you need a permit to own a gun, carrying your weapon outside your own property will be illegal, there will be a maximum number of guns allowed per property (1 weapon for everyone about the age of 16 who lives in the house plus 3 extra guns),

Option seven: other, namely.......

Take your pic

Tough choice on how to vote in that one.

.223 is good to 500 or maybe 600 yards.
.308 is good out to 1000
7mm Mag is good to 1500 or so, doesn't drop subsonic until around 1800. Still has around same velocity as .45 ACP even at 2000.
Could get better with a hot load.

Yep, tough choice if someone ever wants to change or in anyway **** with the second.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

None of these options are valid? So option one, The second amendment stays as is, with no gun restricting laws whatsoever is not valid according to you?

None of the options which I quoted back are valid.

The Second Amendment forbids any and all infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Any option which includes keeping the Second Amendment intact and which also includes any infringements of this right is contradictory.

 

[TurtleDude]

My vote would be to keep the 2nd as is, and ease up on restrictions currently in place.

enforce the second amendment as intended

1) the federal government cannot restrict what private citizens own or use or buy

2) the states can restrict use of firearms but any firearm a state or local government bans will be precluded for use by any agents of said state or local government

3) politicians cannot hire guards using firearms to protect them that are banned to other citizens.

 

[TurtleDude]

None of the options which I quoted back are valid.

The Second Amendment forbids any and all infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Any option which includes keeping the Second Amendment intact and which also includes any infringements of this right is contradictory.

I like the option

what should be the bag limits on gun banning scum bags?:mrgreen:

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I like the option

what should be the bag limits on gun banning scum bags?:mrgreen:

Why should there be any limit? As long as any remain alive and active, anyone who takes one out is doing the public a great service, regardless of how many he has previously taken out.

 

[molten_dragon]

I wouldn't change the intent of the 2nd amendment, but I would change the wording of it so it's less vague.

Namely, civilians can own any firearm that is intended for use by a single person (i.e. no crew-served weapons), and is not a destructive device (no RPGs or stinger missiles). Anyone over 18 can own a gun, but if you want to carry one in public, you have to pass a basic marksmanship test. Restrictions on firearms purchases that are intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals are acceptable if they don't provide any meaningful barriers to a law-abiding citizen obtaining a gun (instant background checks for example).

 

[Tigger]

My preference would be closest to #2. I don't want to see firearms registered, but rather a verification program (not licensing) for gun owners. Each state would be required to provide the option for "Firearms Purchase Verification" each time they renewed their driver's license/state ID. If that option was not chosen, the license would be required to include the label "Individual Not Verified for Firearms Transactions" on the back side. If the option was chosen, then the equivelant of a NICS check would be run on the individual each time the driver's license/state ID was renewed. As the database used for this verification (an improved version of the NICS database) would be run by the Federal Government, with the assistance of information provided by the states, and verified by SSN as well as name, address, etc.... that check would not be allowed to take more than 3 minutes to process. Assuming the database search provided no disqualifying information, the license would have the label "Individual Verified for Firearms Transactions" on the back. Individuals for whom disqualifying information was found would get a license labeled "Individual Disqualified for Firearms Transactions". If/when an individual's status in the database changed, the state would notify them of this and issue a new driver's license to the individual, noting their new status.

All firearms transactions would be based on the driver's license label. The dealer/individual selling the firearm would call a toll free number, provide the driver's license number to an automated system, which would again verify that the status of the individual had not changed, and the transaction would be approved. Call logs would be erased daily and no information on the number, type, etc... of firearms being purchased would be recorded.