would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

rocket88 said:

Probably not. They orobably didn't have semi-automatic assault rifles in mind either.

Click to expand...

of course they didn't. there is no such thing as a semi auto assault rifle.

SkyChief said:

It's important to be cognizant of the fact that the Second Amendment doesn't give anyone the "Right" to keep and bear (fire)arms.

It only acknowledges that Right.

As written, the Second Amendment is very ambiguous, and contains too many commas (3) in my opinion. . . Understandably, this creates a lot of confusion.

I propose it be rewritten so it is clear to ALL Americans, not just the Constitutional Law experts.

It should read something like this:

Each individual's Right to buy, sell, possess, transfer, and carry firearms shall not be infringed IN ANY WAY.

Any Lawmaker who proposes infringements on this Right shall be impeached, convicted, and removed from office.

Click to expand...

Sky Chief:

Your last line still tramples on the First Ammendment. It is however nice to see that you're now impeaching politicians and firing those politicians who utter the unspeakable rather than hanging them.

Now your revised Second Amendment still has some ambiguities. Can an individual possess a stolen firearm or do you mean "own"? Can a firearm such as a bazooka, a light anti-tank missile launcher, an anti-aircraft missile manpad, or a flame-thrower be included in your protected list of fire arms. What about weapons which cannot be carried by one individual like a LCMG, a recoilless rifle, an automatic grenade launcher, a medium or heavy mortar, a TOW anti-tank missile system, an artillery piece or an armoured fighting vehicle. What constitutes a firearm in your mind? Going to the hyperbolic extreme, would a nuclear demolition pack be such a protected weapon?

The Second Amendment prevents the Federal Government from infringing upon the right of individuals to own and bear arms (firearms). What about state legislatures? Can they regulate and infringe upon gun-owners rights if the 14th Amendment is altered? After all the Second Amendment made it clear that it existed to supply citizen militia soldiers to well-regulated state militias and implied through the Federalist Papers and the Militia Acts that this was because the framers of the US constitution wanted to avoid relying on a professional, federally controlled standing army to protect the now federated states. But now you have a federally controlled professional military so is the Second Ammendment even relevant anymore in the sense that those who wrote it intended?

Finally if the right to own and bear arms/firearms is a basic human right which apply to all human beings then would you support a programme to arm with semi-automatic pistols and long arms all "undocumented" aliens residing in the United States and the similar arming of all children, be they aliens or citizens? What about criminals. If the right to bear arms is an inalienable and natural right then how can courts strip such rights from those convicted of crimes who have served their sentences?

I apologise for the rather rambling nature of this post, but not being a US citizen, I marvel at the glaring inconsistencies in American Constitutional Law when rights and ammendments clash.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

danielpalos said:

No. Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.



Our legislatures must provide for the common defense.



If our legislatures refuse to do their Job, it is the obligation of the militia of the United States to, take it up with the Judicature.

Click to expand...

Militias tend to not be just any yokel who just happens to have a gun.

SkyChief said:

The Second Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear arms - not preschools.

Any establishment may refuse to admit someone who is armed. Even Courts and State buildings may refuse armed people from entering buildings. And so can preschools.

Click to expand...

So what about a city? Say Chicago....

Also, infringe dies not mean regulate. Words have meanings

SkyChief said:

The Second Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear arms - not preschools.

Any establishment may refuse to admit someone who is armed. Even Courts and State buildings may refuse armed people from entering buildings. And so can preschools.

Click to expand...

Sky Chief:

So can federal, state and municipal governments ban the possession of firearms in all public spaces which are routinely frequented by other members of the public, ie. cities and towns? Can they limit legal firearm possession to only private spaces like gun-owners' immoveable land and homes, gun clubs and businesses owned by the gun-possessor/owner?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

TurtleDude said:

of course they didn't. there is no such thing as a semi auto assault rifle.

Click to expand...

Well, in thst case no regulations at all is the way to go.

rocket88 said:

Well, in thst case no regulations at all is the way to go.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with objectively valid laws that prevent someone from say practicing with center fire rifles in Central Park or shooting pigeons with shotguns on Times Square, or carrying firearms into courtrooms or jails

Evilroddy said:

Sky Chief:

So can federal, state and municipal governments ban the possession of firearms in all public spaces which are routinely frequented by other members of the public, ie. cities and towns? Can they limit legal firearm possession to only private spaces like gun-owners' immoveable land and homes, gun clubs and businesses owned by the gun-possessor/owner?

Click to expand...

No, not in ALL PUBLIC SPACES.

Federal, state, and municipal governments may restrict or prohibit the possession of firearms within Federal, state and municipal buildings.

Evilroddy said:

Sky Chief:


I apologise for the rather rambling nature of this post, but not being a US citizen, I marvel at the glaring inconsistencies in American Constitutional Law when rights and ammendments clash.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine how hard it is for a non-citizen to understand the protected gun rights of American citizens.

Americans have enjoyed the right to keep and bear arms for 230 years.

When people want to infringe on our Rights, and transform gun ownership into a privilege, we call them out on it. Here's a quote from one of our founding fathers who probably explains it a lot better than I ever could:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

mrdeltoid said:

I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed. So, what say you? Would you vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? yes or no

Click to expand...

Parts of our Constitution haven't aged as well as others. I would like to see major changes in the 2nd Amendment.

mrjurrs said:

Parts of our Constitution haven't aged as well as others. I would like to see major changes in the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

me too-it should merely say that the federal government has no power whatsoever in this area.

If it's black and white, only yes, total repeal, or no, keep it exactly how it currently is, I'd have to vote yes to repealing it, so that's what I picked, for lack of a better option.
However, if the question allowed nuances with a third option to merely modify it without repealing it, then I'd go for the modification but would keep the amendment.

What I mean is, sure, good citizens should be allowed to bear arms to defend their lives and property from criminals, but nobody who is not in the military or special law enforcement units needs a military-grade weapon that fires zillions of shots in a second, so that the crazy person goes into a movie theater and kills 50 innocents. And dangerously mentally ill people or violent convicted felons should not be allowed to own weapons, either. So, I'd like an amendment that more specifically dealt with what classes of weapons should be allowed, and what kind of people should be excluded from this right.

And the language about an armed milicia, interpreted as being in reference to the citizens being able to defend themselves from an abusive government, is kind of outdated. The way the modern military is set up, no milicia would ever be able to resist a full-blown assault by our well-equipped armed forces, so this phrasing is quite outdated and frankly useless. I don't think the sense of bearing arms is a need to protect ourselves from our own government, but rather, a need to protect ourselves from bad guys who might break into our homes to steal and rape.

Even if every single American owned big guns, if a tyrannic government decided to use the military (and assuming that the military would obey those orders) to violently repress the citizens, there is NOTHING these citizens, armed or not, could do to stop it.

At the time of the Founding Fathers, the existing weapons the armed forces could have, weren't much better than what a citizen could have. But today... how do you stop a fighter jet armed with bunk-piercing bombs, or a modern tank, merely with your household shotgun??

Sure you can stop a burglar with a shotgun... but our modern military? Don't make me laugh. Simply having phrasing in that sense doesn't make the citizens capable of facing our armed forces if they were to turn against us... so the phrasing is useless.

GreatNews2night said:

If it's black and white, only yes, total repeal, or no, keep it exactly what it is, I'd have to vote yes to repealing it, so that's what I picked.
However, if the question allowed nuances with a third option to merely modify it without repealing it, then I'd go for the modification but would keep the amendment.

What I mean is, sure, good citizens should be allowed to bear arms to defend their lives and property from criminals, but nobody who is not in the military or special law enforcement units needs a military-grade weapon that fires zillions of shots in a second, so that the crazy person goes into a movie theater and kills 50 innocents. And dangerously mentally ill people or violent convicted felons should not be allowed to own weapons, either. So, I'd like an amendment that more specifically dealt with what classes of weapons should be allowed, and what kind of people should be excluded from this right.

And the language about an armed milicia, interpreted as being in reference to the citizens being able to defend themselves from an abusive government, is kind of outdated. The way the modern military is set up, no milicia would ever be able to resist a full-blown assault by our well-equipped armed forces, so this phrasing is quite outdated and frankly useless. I don't think the sense of bearing arms is to protect ourselves from our own government, but rather, to protect ourselves from bad guys who might break into our homes to steal and rape.

Click to expand...

This post is a hilarious combination of hyperbolic hysteria with wanton ignorance of existing law

TurtleDude said:

This post is a hilarious combination of hyperbolic hysteria with wanton ignorance of existing law

Click to expand...

Hyperbolic hysteria? This is stuff that HAS happened in reality (someone walking into a cinema theater with a high-powered weapon and killing dozens), precisely like that. Get informed.

Sure, "zillions of shots in a second" is a way of speaking, and not to be taken literally. If you take literally a figure of speech, I pity you. Are you a very concrete person?

And yes, state laws do require background checks, ban certain weapons... but there are loopholes and inconsistencies between states. More specific guidelines in a constitutional amendment (which would apply to all 50 states equally) would have provided more clarity and consistency.

There's nothing wrong with my post. I stand behind it.

GreatNews2night said:

Hyperbolic hysteria? This is stuff that HAS happened in reality (someone walking into a cinema theater with a high-powered weapon and killing dozens), precisely like that. Get informed.

Sure, "zillions of shots in a second" is a way of speaking, and not to be taken literally. If you take literally a figure of speech, I pity you. Are you a very concrete person?

And yes, state laws do require background checks, ban certain weapons... but there are loopholes and inconsistencies between states. More specific guidelines in a constitutional amendment (which would apply to all 50 states equally) would have provided more clarity and consistency.

There's nothing wrong with my post. I stand behind it.

Click to expand...

Federal power to ban or restrict firearms is far less than states and as the 2nd Amendment incorporation is fleshed out, I expect state bans will start being stricken. States were intended to be the only authority to regulate firearms, not the federal government. And calling the weapon used in the Aurora shooting (btw 50 people were not killed by any stretch) high powered demonstrates a paucity of knowledge on your part. as to your zillions-you sound like an idiotic Californian politician who claimed with "ghost guns" you could shoot a "30 round clip in a second"

GreatNews2night said:

If it's black and white, only yes, total repeal, or no, keep it exactly how it currently is, I'd have to vote yes to repealing it, so that's what I picked, for lack of a better option.
However, if the question allowed nuances with a third option to merely modify it without repealing it, then I'd go for the modification but would keep the amendment.

What I mean is, sure, good citizens should be allowed to bear arms to defend their lives and property from criminals, but nobody who is not in the military or special law enforcement units needs a military-grade weapon that fires zillions of shots in a second, so that the crazy person goes into a movie theater and kills 50 innocents. And dangerously mentally ill people or violent convicted felons should not be allowed to own weapons, either. So, I'd like an amendment that more specifically dealt with what classes of weapons should be allowed, and what kind of people should be excluded from this right.

And the language about an armed milicia, interpreted as being in reference to the citizens being able to defend themselves from an abusive government, is kind of outdated. The way the modern military is set up, no milicia would ever be able to resist a full-blown assault by our well-equipped armed forces, so this phrasing is quite outdated and frankly useless. I don't think the sense of bearing arms is a need to protect ourselves from our own government, but rather, a need to protect ourselves from bad guys who might break into our homes to steal and rape.

Even if every single American owned big guns, if a tyrannic government decided to use the military (and assuming that the military would obey those orders) to violently repress the citizens, there is NOTHING these citizens, armed or not, could do to stop it.

At the time of the Founding Fathers, the existing weapons the armed forces could have, weren't much better than what a citizen could have. But today... how do you stop a fighter jet armed with bunk-piercing bombs, or a modern tank, merely with your household shotgun??

Sure you can stop a burglar with a shotgun... but our modern military? Don't make me laugh. Simply having phrasing in that sense doesn't make the citizens capable of facing our armed forces if they were to turn against us... so the phrasing is useless.

Click to expand...

actually 25% of the gun owners would give our military a serious beatdown given numbers, asymmetrical warfare and the fact many vets and AD military would side with gun owners in a civil war. And most of the military's most fearsome weapons could not be used.

GreatNews2night said:

Hyperbolic hysteria? This is stuff that HAS happened in reality (someone walking into a cinema theater with a high-powered weapon and killing dozens), precisely like that. Get informed.

Sure, "zillions of shots in a second" is a way of speaking, and not to be taken literally. If you take literally a figure of speech, I pity you. Are you a very concrete person?

And yes, state laws do require background checks, ban certain weapons... but there are loopholes and inconsistencies between states. More specific guidelines in a constitutional amendment (which would apply to all 50 states equally) would have provided more clarity and consistency.

There's nothing wrong with my post. I stand behind it.

Click to expand...

We need more federal gun control

vegas giants said:

We need more federal gun control

Click to expand...

And your reasoning for this is? Climate change?

zimmer said:

And your reasoning for this is? Climate change?

Click to expand...

Are the bone spurs acting up today? Lol

ttwtt78640 said:

We may not need a reason to have rights, but those rights must be well defined. I view the militia and security references clause as being important because that alone defines the type of arms involved in (under?) that right.

It is the perfect (and only?) reason to deny that "weapons of war" or "military style" guns are not precisely what the 2A was (and still is) all about.

The 2A was clearly not about allowing the people to own and carry guns suitable for hunting game or target shooting, but not applicable to guns suitable for military, personal defense or security (e.g. police) use.

Click to expand...

Absolutely right. Jefferson's insights give us a clearer idea : "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776"

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

SkyChief said:

It's important to be cognizant of the fact that the Second Amendment doesn't give anyone the "Right" to keep and bear (fire)arms.

It only acknowledges that Right.

As written, the Second Amendment is very ambiguous, and contains too many commas (3) in my opinion. . . Understandably, this creates a lot of confusion.

I propose it be rewritten so it is clear to ALL Americans, not just the Constitutional Law experts.

It should read something like this:

Each individual's Right to buy, sell, possess, transfer, and carry firearms shall not be infringed IN ANY WAY.

Any Lawmaker who proposes infringements on this Right shall be impeached, convicted, and removed from office.

Click to expand...

I said that in a different way. That, the 2a is a restriction on government, to not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. 2 ways of saying the same thing, our right to keep and bear arms does not come from the government.

jet57 said:

That's nice commentary and I believe that you are correct. The problem is that we have not been living in a responsible society for some time and the gun industry's lying and irresponsibility, which is why Remington is getting sued (see Tobacco company law suits) is part of our major problem with the second amendment. UP until it was politicized by the far right the second amendment remained as a quaint notation from the past about how we gained our freedom as a nation of "People Power" - literally and any kid could go plinking in almost any open field or canyon. Once the far right got their hands on their amendment, all that stopped and we see that taking care of each other is way down the list of priorities, like a peaceful society.

Click to expand...

You consider any part of the Constitution of the United States, "a quaint notation from our past"? Our freedom came from the barrel of a gun. And if you want to lay blame on either wing , the only wing that is constantly clamoring to restrict or infringe on the 2a rights is the LEFT wing. The lefts answer to everything is to blame everything and everybody for crimes committed with a gun but the person that actually commits the crime. I'll post this once again to demonstrate how at least one framer of the Constitution felt about the 2a :" No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776"

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

The bolded in Jefferson's musings takes all the guesswork out of what the 2a was supposed to mean. 243 years after he wrote it, gun laws that prevent concealed carry has the same effect now. It only disarms the law abiding. " they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Well how about that......thugs prefer unarmed victims. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Helix said:

I draw the line at sharks with lasers.

Click to expand...

You’re dead to me.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I have to agree with a lot of what you said because growing up in the 50's and 60's no one made gun rights or gun laws a political thing at all.
Sure, everyone knew people who "did not approve of guns", everyone knew folks who hated guns, but were they left or right wing?
THEY WERE BOTH!
And people who OWNED guns were both, too.

I knew five hippie types who owned guns when I was growing up. One guy owned a head shop (and leather goods). Another was a motorcycle mechanic, another was a who guy who worked in his family's liquor store and the others just "had them" for no reason I knew of, they just always had a couple of pistols.
It really wasn't all that political, nothing like today. Not as extreme as today.
Everyone I knew regarded the anti-gun people the same way one regarded teetotallers, it was just the way they were and it wasn't political, it was, for them, a moral thing. They believed in not killing for any reason thus guns were a NO-NO. That's all.

In fact, in the SIXTIES, one of the very FIRST "gun control measures" was signed into California state law by Governor Ronald Reagan, the Mulford Act, and everyone knew it was to prevent BLACK PEOPLE from arming themselves. And California was Republican MAJORITY at the time, too.

Oh yeah, by the way, most of the Right Wing conservative churchgoer types were the Right's version of anti-gun by the way.
We can all see how that got changed around.
NO ONE (back then) PUSHED THIS VERSION OF JESUS...EVER.

Click to expand...

I gotta disagree on the Mulford act. It didn't prevent blacks from arming themselves. It was passed in response to the Black Panthers armed patrolling of the streets of Oakland. The law didn't single out any race. The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. There was no mention of race. Black and white people could still arm themselves, just not in public. I'm against it, obviously.

mrdeltoid said:

I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed. So, what say you? Would you vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? yes or no

Click to expand...

No 2nd Amendment? What else about America and the Constitution does the bozo not like?