Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

jet57 · Oct 7, 2014

TurtleDude said:
Your posts have not demonstrated you have any understanding of constitutional construction nor any training in constitutional law. Thus, your posts are not credible as to what I know.

The Second Amendment recognized a right the founders assumed-to a man-existed. that right was not one that would tolerate federal interference.

We're all done here now dude: I'm not gonna mess with you anymore tonight.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2014

jet57 said:
We're all done here now dude: I'm not gonna mess with you anymore tonight.

a wise choice grasshopper:mrgreen: (fake chinese accent off)

chromium · Oct 7, 2014

Needs to be repealed altogether, leaving peaceful jurisdictions free to rid themselves of this war mentality

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
I'm Sorry. The language lends itself to the notion that the right to bear arms is for the purposes of security of states, provided by their militias, and that the right of the people (in context, that would be the members of the militia, males ages 17-47, I think the ages) to keep and bear arms (again, in context, for the purpose of state security) shall not be infringed. But for myself, I prefer the traditional interpretation that it is for personal security and extends to all citizens, not just the members of the militia.

Altho many people like to extend the right to bear arms as presented in the 2A as extending to self defense as well, I disagree. They usually claim it has to do with the inalienable right to life and to defend that life. If that's the case, it's covered elsewhere but not in the 2A.

With that said, the 2A placed no restrictions on the owning or bearing of those arms. And to use them successfully in a crisis to defend the country, a person must have training (well-regulated). Hence they need to actively train at the very least.

So I cant disagree with that I believe your point is...but I find it mostly (not completely) irrelevant.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

Jerry said:
I honestly do not understand why Scots surrendered their arms. Yes, I know about the Dublin shooting, and your gun ban will not prevent the next mass homicide.

Banning private arms is a human rights violation.

Even sadder was Australia.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

jet57 said:
Probably not, but the movie theaters and schools and shopping malls will be a lot safer.

Not for the citizens that would be disarmed against their will.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

countryboy said:
It absolutely is. Even the 2nd amendment doesn't "grant" the right to keep and bear arms, it merely affirms the inherent right of self defense.

Sorry. While I would love for that to be true, that is not the intent...or an implication...of the 2A. It is strictly intended to protect our right to keep and bear arms to prevent govt tyranny. However it also places no restrictions on that.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

jet57 said:
I'm also a strng supporter of the 2nd amendment and a gun owner. I just know a big problem when I see one, and it makes me rather concerned for the 2nd amendment. There's just too much stupidity with firearms out there today and I think that the public will do something about it.

I do not see *any* stupidity that affects the public. I do see deliberate crimes, but not accidental shootings of people out on the streets. None. The cops do that, but no citizens so far. I mean the law-abiding citizens carrying and perhaps using their firearms for self-defense.

Accidents and negligence happen...but usually in the home or to the individual. I see no danger to the public from law-abiding gun owners and carriers and there seems to be little actual harm to based any other view on.

edit: ok sorry. I can think of a couple. The moron who shot the guy texting in the movie theater and Dunn who imagined danger and killed the kid at the gas station. I stand corrected. However I've seen 'very few' things reported where a person carrying a firearm used such incredibly bad judgement. Road rage is another gray area but IMO, there are usually 2 people complicit there.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

NIMBY said:
You 2A folks won't be happy until every American is able to OPEN carry whatever they want to carry wherever they want to carry it .

Is that a problem? "An armed society is a polite society."

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

AlabamaPaul said:
I would prefer not to have to pay a special tax to own a suppressor for hearing safety or possess a rifle with a barrel shorter than what the government deems as legal...

Hearing safety? Flash suppression for better visibility in the dark!

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

jet57 said:
You're not getting it. The guys who shoot multiple people; ya'know - the ones we're talking about - were, up until those points law abiding citizens right?

All criminals are law-abiding citizens until they commit a crime. The nutters and losers that do the spree shootings are almost ALL mentallly ill people. That is where more attention should be paid.

However the crimes committed rates of people with cc permits is very very low. The one for FL is pretty regularly posted, something like a few million permit carriers and 167 convicted of crimes.

Willie Orwontee · Oct 7, 2014

jet57 said:
Hmmm… celebrating the public’s profound ignorance of constitutional principles.. hmmm; nope.

Hmmmm, yup . . . You pine for a time when the people will one day rise up and vote the right to arms into the dustbin of history. The attempt of that, even by using the process for amendment set-out in Article V, would be a display of ignorance of foundational principles.

"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

jet57 said:
I just know that the American public is educated enough to know how the amendment process works.

You do realize that many states conditioned their ratification of the Constitution on the Bill of Rights being submitted to them? Do you really want to make the argument that we have become so enlightened that we can second-guess them now and reform what they deemed vital and sacrifice rights they deemed inviolate by any means?

jet57 said:
Let’s not forget the flip flop of the 18th and 21st amendments.

That's the example you want to use? The amendment where affording government a new power to restrict citizen action was such an unmitigated disaster it was repealed?

jet57 said:
Well I happen to be one of those with altruistic intentions for a safer society.

Well then, lobby for reforms to the criminal justice system

jet57 said:
Gun violence in and of itself is going through the roof as well.

Leftist hug-a-thug judges have more culpability for high crime than ordinary citizens exercising their gun rights. We don't have a gun problem we have a criminals.are.allowed.to.run.amok.and.commit.crimes.with.impunity problem. Besides, your "going through the roof"characterization is wrong anyway . . .

jet57 said:
It reflects a very sick society. Like I said: not just now, but down the road people are going to put the brakes on this nonsense.

Yeah, by restricting the actions and behavior of those least likely to commit crime.

jet57 said:
Of course it’s the politics; that’s the other side of the rusty coin. The gun nuts are making hay of the 2nd amendment when none need be made.

Well, the way to have gun rights people stop talking about gun bans is for you to stop talking about banning guns.

We gotta deal? (As if any same person would trust that you statist, collectivist, neo-fascist authoritarians could ever come to respect the rights of citizens)

jet57 said:
The gun nuts put their right to carry and .50 cal machine guns over and above the citizen’s right to a peaceful existence with all of the nuts killing people.

You do not have any enforceable right to a peaceful existence or more specifically, to be safe.

jet57 said:
It’s not a hard thing to understand. It would be nice if the gun nuts did more to help the situation rather than talk about useful idiots: that phrase can be reversed ya’know.

Only one side is arguing from emotion and that makes you subject to being propagandized and cultivated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed BS till you can be harvested on the first Tuesday in November . . .

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

jet57 said:
So, who is supposed to be against us with such weapons? The cops? That happened with the Thompson; remember Al Capone and those guys?

Are you under the impression that resistance or revolt against the govt will require firearms? :lamo

Of course not. That comes down to economics and that can be disrupted in many devastating ways without firearms. The firearms are more relevant to the protection/self-defense of those employing other methods to fight that tyranny (as I said, by economic means.)

I'd elaborate but prefer not. Many strategies have been presented in fiction and non-fiction for doing enough damage to the country's economy to force change...major and minor.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2014

Lursa said:
Hearing safety? Flash suppression for better visibility in the dark!

a suppressor is what educated people call a "silencer". that is what he meant

Montecresto · Oct 7, 2014

Lursa said:
Altho many people like to extend the right to bear arms as presented in the 2A as extending to self defense as well, I disagree. They usually claim it has to do with the inalienable right to life and to defend that life. If that's the case, it's covered elsewhere but not in the 2A.

With that said, the 2A placed no restrictions on the owning or bearing of those arms. And to use them successfully in a crisis to defend the country, a person must have training (well-regulated). Hence they need to actively train at the very least.

So I cant disagree with that I believe your point is...but I find it mostly (not completely) irrelevant.

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;[56]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[57][58][59]
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seco...ates_Constitution#Pre-Constitution_background

Sorry to have been irrelevant.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

Cephus said:
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. If it is somehow offensive to provide your SSN to get a gun registered, it should be equally offensive to have to provide your SSN to get a job, yet virtually nobody is bothered by the latter.

It's not about 'offense,' it's about security.

How often do you hear of employers abusing employee personal info?

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

TurtleDude said:
a suppressor is what educated people call a "silencer". that is what he meant

I know. They also suppress muzzle flash.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

Cephus said:
But not just anyone has your SSN. Employers aren't necessarily secure either, hackers could access your online employment records just as easily as they hack into Walmart.

As yet, over decades, that has not been an issue. Employers have accountablity. Random people do not.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2014

Lursa said:
I know. They also suppress muzzle flash.

sometimes but there are two distinct attachments one can put on the end of a firearm

a noise suppressor which is a Class III NFA item (meaning the second amendment has a been violated) and a flash suppressor which has not yet been the subject to a federal violation of the 2A though during the clinton assault weapon "ban" it was a defining characteristic of a "banned"weapon.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;[56]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[57][58][59]
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to have been irrelevant.

YOu probably missed 'my' point but the one I bolded in new info for me...and it is welcome info.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

TurtleDude said:
sometimes but there are two distinct attachments one can put on the end of a firearm

a noise suppressor which is a Class III NFA item (meaning the second amendment has a been violated) and a flash suppressor which has not yet been the subject to a federal violation of the 2A though during the clinton assault weapon "ban" it was a defining characteristic of a "banned"weapon.

I was referring to a noise suppressor (silencer). And they arent illegal everywhere, if that's what you mean. They were recently made legal here in WA st.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2014

Lursa said:
I was referring to a noise suppressor (silencer). And they arent illegal everywhere, if that's what you mean. They were recently made legal here in WA st.

yes, if you get the permission (he can deny it and you cannot sue for mandamus) from your chief local LE Officer, pay the 200 dollar tax, and wait 11 months for the ATF to act.

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

TurtleDude said:
yes, if you get the permission (he can deny it and you cannot sue for mandamus) from your chief local LE Officer, pay the 200 dollar tax, and wait 11 months for the ATF to act.

In WA St? I havent looked into it.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2014

Lursa said:
In WA St? I havent looked into it.

That is a FEDERAL law that applies to all states

states can ban people owning machine guns, silencers or SBRs. if they allow them, a potential owner must comply with the idiotic and unconstitutional provisions of the 1934 National Firearms Act

Lursa · Oct 7, 2014

TurtleDude said:
That is a FEDERAL law that applies to all states

states can ban people owning machine guns, silencers or SBRs. if they allow them, a potential owner must comply with the idiotic and unconstitutional provisions of the 1934 National Firearms Act

Bummer. That sucks.

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Yes

No

Not sure

warrior of the wetlands

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

warrior of the wetlands

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

warrior of the wetlands

Tenacious

Tenacious

warrior of the wetlands

Tenacious

warrior of the wetlands

Tenacious