would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

[OldFatGuy]

i'd probably support an update with about fifty fewer commas and maybe a specification that howitzers, bioweapons, and nuclear bombs aren't covered.

You'll have to rip my auto firing 120 round nerf blaster out of my dead hands!

 

[Evilroddy]

Touché. :thumbs:

How about this:

Any Lawmaker who proposes infringements on this Right shall be publicly hanged on the steps of the Capitol building.

No ambiguity there!

So bye-bye to the First Ammendment in order to safe-guard a recent reinterpretation of the Second Ammendment? That does not seem to be very sound reasoning. But no doubt, that does not bother you, Sky Chief.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[jet57]

I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed.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

No it should never be repealed; it's part of who we are, but I would certainly like to see it trimmed down through gun control so that it becomes a lot less dangerous to our society.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No it should never be repealed; it's part of who we are, but I would certainly like to see it trimmed down through gun control so that it becomes a lot less dangerous to our society.

I don't know if "trimmed down" is the verbage I would use.
Let's just say that the 2A is perhaps the only right, and yes it IS a RIGHT, that requires such an enormous responsibility.

If we had a constitutional amendment that said every American had the RIGHT to perform emergency surgery AS a DOCTOR "when needed or justified", would we want any idiot running around performing surgery, just because it is their right as expressed in the Constitution or would we want to require background and training first?

I admit that this makes the 2A rather unique. Thing is, everyone needs to admit this to themselves, there really is nothing else on Earth quite like the Second Amendment, so while it is indeed our right, if we view exercise of that right too frivolously, at some point our leadership WILL indeed figure out a way to force us to view it seriously. And it is better if we voluntarily agree upon a mutual trust between us, to take good care of each other with regard to this very special, very serious and unique constitutional right.

After all that last line...something about taking care of each other - - isn't that the real purpose of it in the end?
We're supposed to use the 2A to HELP TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER and protect each other.
And while I do not agree with many of you folks on some issues, I am more than willing to make a pledge to do whatever is in my power to TAKE CARE OF YOU if you will do the same for me.

That's respect, and I think the core of any 2A argument MUST be based on MUTUAL RESPECT, because without that, the 2A and every other amendment, indeed even the Constitution itself, is worthless and meaningless.

 

[AGENT J]

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

i voted no but i wish there was an option for hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll no

That said could there be amendments of it that i might support or gun restrictions i might support? yes but i dont support the 2nd going anywhere

 

[jimbo]

No and I do not see that being put to a popular vote, but if it was I would suggest changing "shall not be infringed" to "shall not be abridged or denied".

The only change I'd recommend is total removal of the first clause.

We don't need a reason to keep and bear.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The only change I'd recommend is total removal of the first clause.

We don't need a reason to keep and bear.

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.

 

[Moon]

i'd probably support an update with about fifty fewer commas and maybe a specification that howitzers, bioweapons, and nuclear bombs aren't covered.

Where do you stand on antimatter weapons and photon torpedoes?

 

[SkyChief]

So bye-bye to the First Ammendment in order to safe-guard a recent reinterpretation of the Second Ammendment? That does not seem to be very sound reasoning. But no doubt, that does not bother you, Sky Chief.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

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.

 

[Helix]

Where do you stand on antimatter weapons and photon torpedoes?

I draw the line at sharks with lasers.

 

[rocket88]

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

I would say it should not be repealed. The problem is in the interpretation. Anybody has a long way to go to prove to me that the framers of the Constitution meant "you can own as much of any type of weapon as you want to"

 

[SkyChief]

I would say it should not be repealed. The problem is in the interpretation. Anybody has a long way to go to prove to me that the framers of the Constitution meant "you can own as much of any type of weapon as you want to"

The Framers didn't specify which "types" of firearms were allowed, so we must assume they meant ALL types of firearms.

 

[jet57]

I don't know if "trimmed down" is the verbage I would use.
Let's just say that the 2A is perhaps the only right, and yes it IS a RIGHT, that requires such an enormous responsibility.

If we had a constitutional amendment that said every American had the RIGHT to perform emergency surgery AS a DOCTOR "when needed or justified", would we want any idiot running around performing surgery, just because it is their right as expressed in the Constitution or would we want to require background and training first?

I admit that this makes the 2A rather unique. Thing is, everyone needs to admit this to themselves, there really is nothing else on Earth quite like the Second Amendment, so while it is indeed our right, if we view exercise of that right too frivolously, at some point our leadership WILL indeed figure out a way to force us to view it seriously. And it is better if we voluntarily agree upon a mutual trust between us, to take good care of each other with regard to this very special, very serious and unique constitutional right.

After all that last line...something about taking care of each other - - isn't that the real purpose of it in the end?
We're supposed to use the 2A to HELP TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER and protect each other.
And while I do not agree with many of you folks on some issues, I am more than willing to make a pledge to do whatever is in my power to TAKE CARE OF YOU if you will do the same for me.

That's respect, and I think the core of any 2A argument MUST be based on MUTUAL RESPECT, because without that, the 2A and every other amendment, indeed even the Constitution itself, is worthless and meaningless.

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.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

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.

 

[rocket88]

The Framers didn't specify which "types" of firearms were allowed, so we must assume they meant ALL types of firearms.

They actually didn't specify firearms. So if i have a nuclear weapon, it's ok?

 

[jet57]

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.

Very very well said. I agree with you and grew up- in the 60's myself: my friend's big brother used to shoot jack rabbits in the field near our house.

You are quite correct; thank you for posting.

 

[SkyChief]

They actually didn't specify firearms. So if i have a nuclear weapon, it's ok?

They didn't specify nuclear weapons.

What kind of arms do you suppose they were talking about?

 

[rocket88]

They didn't specify nuclear weapons.

What kind of arms do you suppose they were talking about?

So you think i have no right to nuclear weapons? You said we have to assume any type of weaponry.

I think we probably agree that letting Iran have nuclear wealons would be a bad thing. But, if bearing arms of any type isca God-given right, why is it different fir them?

 

[SkyChief]

So you think i have no right to nuclear weapons? You said we have to assume any type of weaponry.

I did NOT say that.

Here's what I actually said:

The Framers didn't specify which "types" of firearms were allowed, so we must assume they meant ALL types of firearms.

 

[Phys251]

Supporters of guns appear to believer that "both sides" would ever agree to violently overthrow the government. Look who is in power now. That's what they want. He isn't even supported by the majority of Americans. They believe that only they are true Americans, everyone else is the enemy, and they should be shot if they regulate guns. All other "rights", no prob.

Makes one wonder whether this government, even with this president, is the ultimate threat to our liberties.

 

[vegas giants]

I did NOT say that.

Here's what I actually said:

They never ever mentioned firearms specifically

 

[TurtleDude]

They actually didn't specify firearms. So if i have a nuclear weapon, it's ok?

is that an arm a citizen would normally keep and BEAR and is it an arm useful for self defense? People who ask questions like this are generally not serious and if they are-it proves they don't understand that the underlying natural right that the second is based upon is the right of self defense. Nukes are not useful for self defense

 

[vegas giants]

They didn't specify nuclear weapons.

What kind of arms do you suppose they were talking about?

They never specified. They could have said firearms....they did not

 

[TurtleDude]

I draw the line at sharks with lasers.

That's very white of you :mrgreen:

 

[TurtleDude]

I would say it should not be repealed. The problem is in the interpretation. Anybody has a long way to go to prove to me that the framers of the Constitution meant "you can own as much of any type of weapon as you want to"

there is no document from any founder that even remotely hints that any of them thought the federal government should have any say. But since the right recognized in the second was designed to cement and guarantee the natural right of self defense, one can honestly state that weapons that are designed to destroy areas are not self defensive weapons that citizens would keep and bear