It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

So in your view, no right is unlimited? Would that include government regulations and oversight placed on voting?

 

[Dana7360]

I just did a search on hitler banned guns.

Guess what?

hitler never banned guns.

So your lie above really should stop.

You people post things without even any proof and expect people to believe it without finding the truth for themselves. Guess what? Not everyone is as lazy as you are.

Here's the link to the search:

did hitler ban guns - Bing

Click it and pick your article. Maybe, just maybe you people will want truth but I doubt it. You all spew lies and propaganda so much for so long you don't know what truth is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I just did a search on hitler banned guns.

Guess what?

hitler never banned guns.

So your lie above really should stop.

You people post things without even any proof and expect people to believe it without finding the truth for themselves. Guess what? Not everyone is as lazy as you are.

Here's the link to the search:

did hitler ban guns - Bing

Click it and pick your article. Maybe, just maybe you people will want truth but I doubt it. You all spew lies and propaganda so much for so long you don't know what truth is.

You might want to read the stuff you link to. Just saying that it's looks bad when even your linked article destroys your point.

"It occurred to me, with the help of a sharp-eyed member of the Teeming Millions, that I didn't completely answer this question, but instead focused on the part about the quote....When the Nazis enacted their own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons."

 

[Lakhota]

The Second Amendment is both confusing and peculiar.

Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

 

[Dana7360]

I just did a search on hitler banned guns.

Guess what?

hitler never banned guns.

So your lie above really should stop.

You people post things without even any proof and expect people to believe it without finding the truth for themselves. Guess what? Not everyone is as lazy as you are.

Here's the link to the search:

did hitler ban guns - Bing

Click it and pick your article. Maybe, just maybe you people will want truth but I doubt it. You all spew lies and propaganda so much for so long you don't know what truth is.

You might want to read the stuff you link to. Just saying that it's looks bad when even your linked article destroys your point.

"It occurred to me, with the help of a sharp-eyed member of the Teeming Millions, that I didn't completely answer this question, but instead focused on the part about the quote....When the Nazis enacted their own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons."

That's not banning guns.

That's regulating guns.

You can post all the garbage you want but what you post proves you're wrong. Not allowing jewish people and those under 18 to have a gun isn't banning guns.

If it was then America has banned guns. Criminals, those with mental problems and those who have a history of domestic assault can't buy a gun legally in America.

 

[Auld Phart]

The Second Amendment is both confusing and peculiar.

Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

Not really

 

[BluesLegend]

The OP is ignorant, there are already severe government restrictions on the types of automatic weapons he is foaming at the mouth about so much so that very few civilians own them. That's the problem in general with gun control advocates they are dumb as a brick, if a rifle 'looks' scary they assume its a machine gun when many hunting rifles they deem okay are actually 10x more deadly. Idiots

 

[Iceweasel]

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

That's why I own my particular collection. If some asshole is outraged that's their problem, not mine.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

seems to me that every American should own the small arms of the American infantry soldier Lakhota .

I agree - just like when the Second Amendment was written.

It would not appear the Founders had the same interpretation in mind when they had written those words "promote the general welfare", yet how much have we stretched that interpretation over the years?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I just did a search on hitler banned guns.

Guess what?

hitler never banned guns.

So your lie above really should stop.

You people post things without even any proof and expect people to believe it without finding the truth for themselves. Guess what? Not everyone is as lazy as you are.

Here's the link to the search:

did hitler ban guns - Bing

Click it and pick your article. Maybe, just maybe you people will want truth but I doubt it. You all spew lies and propaganda so much for so long you don't know what truth is.

You might want to read the stuff you link to. Just saying that it's looks bad when even your linked article destroys your point.

"It occurred to me, with the help of a sharp-eyed member of the Teeming Millions, that I didn't completely answer this question, but instead focused on the part about the quote....When the Nazis enacted their own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons."

That's not banning guns.

That's regulating guns.

You can post all the garbage you want but what you post proves you're wrong. Not allowing jewish people and those under 18 to have a gun isn't banning guns.

If it was then America has banned guns. Criminals, those with mental problems and those who have a history of domestic assault can't buy a gun legally in America.

"When the Nazis enacted their own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons."

Oh, so it's OK to for the government to disarm people you want to mass murder and eradicate. Got it. I misunderstood your point

 

[Anathema]

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

It is a moral outrage that we allow Socialists,like yourself to continue breathing. The RTKBA is Constitutionally protected. The lives of Enemies of this nation are not.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California.......

Maybe. I feel sorrow but no sympathy for those who refuse to fight bsck and allow themselves to be slaughtered.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

Oh, Im sorry but it IS NOT the role or purpose of the Government to protect individuals on a moment to momebt basis. That is the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.....

It is,morally reprehensible and disgraceful that law abiding American Citizens are barred from owning ANY weapon which the US Government arms its military with.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

Those nations have neither the tradition of individual self-defense nor the Constitutional protections for weapon ownership that this,country does. If that's what you prefer, please feel free to leave.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

FROM MY COLD, DEAD HAND, tonto!!!!!! That is the ONLY way you will get thise firearms back. If Americans aren't willing to stomach dead soldiers on the ither side of the planet, how many dead LEOs in their backyard do you think they're gonna stomach in the daily deadly stand-offs necessary to disarm the American people?

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

That would do nothing except move the ENTIRE firearms market into the shadows instead of just the small portion that's currently there.

 

[SwimExpert]

I just did a search on hitler banned guns.

Guess what?

hitler never banned guns.

So your lie above really should stop.

You people post things without even any proof and expect people to believe it without finding the truth for themselves. Guess what? Not everyone is as lazy as you are.

Here's the link to the search:

did hitler ban guns - Bing

Click it and pick your article. Maybe, just maybe you people will want truth but I doubt it. You all spew lies and propaganda so much for so long you don't know what truth is.

The "Hitler disarmed the people" argument is just one of the many spectacular failings of knowledge and understanding that graces this board on a regular basis. Germany already had very strict gun control laws before the Nazis came into power. Under Hitler the regulations changed. Laws forbade Jews from owning guns, but they relaxed a little for ethnic Germans.

Many quotes have been attributed to Hitler, where he allegedly says something to the effect that disarming the citizenry is important to conquer a nation. The implication being that disarming Germany was key in Hitler's bid to rise to power. These quotes seem to be invented. A quote that is legitimate is Hitler saying that it would be a mistake to allow the "subject races" to be armed. That sentiment is much more in line with Hitler's master race ideology.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr (page 20, 21)

The history of gun control in Germany from the post-World War I period to the inception of World War II seems to be a history of declining, rather than increasing, gun control. The Weimar Republic gun laws of 1928 represented a liberalization of the draconian post- World War I prohibitions on gun possession. As noted earlier, in January 1919, the Reichstag passed a complete ban on the ownership of firearms, a ban which was in effect in Germany until the Weimar government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928 (the "1928 Law"). The 1919 ban-enacted as the Regulations of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession- provided that "[a]ll firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately. " 9 0 According to Halbrook, under the regulation as enforced, "[w]hoever kept a firearm or ammunition was subject to imprisonment for five years and a fine of 100,000 marks. That decree would remain in force until repealed in 1928. " 91 On August 7, 1920, the German government also passed a Law on the Disarmament of the People, which put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty regarding the limits on military weapons. 92

Against this background, the Weimar 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition represented a significant liberalization, admittedly through regulation, of gun possession."

[...]

With regard to ordinary gun possession, as opposed to manufacture, the 1938 Nazi gun laws represented a further liberalization of gun control. In fact, most of the changes in the law with regard to possession and carrying reflected a loosening of the regulations, not a tightening. The Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 (the "1938 Law") is patterned on the 1928 Law. The two laws have the same structure, similar section headings, and broadly similar language.

 

[Wildman]

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

give it a try you might like it, and keep your (all liberscum/demoncrats) fucking filthy fucking ISIS sympathizing hands off our Constitutional RIGHTS!!

and

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Once again, for the slow and retarded, its not the gun.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I just did a search on hitler banned guns.

Guess what?

hitler never banned guns.

So your lie above really should stop.

You people post things without even any proof and expect people to believe it without finding the truth for themselves. Guess what? Not everyone is as lazy as you are.

Here's the link to the search:

did hitler ban guns - Bing

Click it and pick your article. Maybe, just maybe you people will want truth but I doubt it. You all spew lies and propaganda so much for so long you don't know what truth is.

The "Hitler disarmed the people" argument is just one of the many spectacular failings of knowledge and understanding that graces this board on a regular basis. Germany already had very strict gun control laws before the Nazis came into power. Under Hitler the regulations changed. Laws forbade Jews from owning guns, but they relaxed a little for ethnic Germans.

Many quotes have been attributed to Hitler, where he allegedly says something to the effect that disarming the citizenry is important to conquer a nation. The implication being that disarming Germany was key in Hitler's bid to rise to power. These quotes seem to be invented. A quote that is legitimate is Hitler saying that it would be a mistake to allow the "subject races" to be armed. That sentiment is much more in line with Hitler's master race ideology.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr (page 20, 21)

The history of gun control in Germany from the post-World War I period to the inception of World War II seems to be a history of declining, rather than increasing, gun control. The Weimar Republic gun laws of 1928 represented a liberalization of the draconian post- World War I prohibitions on gun possession. As noted earlier, in January 1919, the Reichstag passed a complete ban on the ownership of firearms, a ban which was in effect in Germany until the Weimar government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928 (the "1928 Law"). The 1919 ban-enacted as the Regulations of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession- provided that "[a]ll firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately. " 9 0 According to Halbrook, under the regulation as enforced, "[w]hoever kept a firearm or ammunition was subject to imprisonment for five years and a fine of 100,000 marks. That decree would remain in force until repealed in 1928. " 91 On August 7, 1920, the German government also passed a Law on the Disarmament of the People, which put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty regarding the limits on military weapons. 92

Against this background, the Weimar 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition represented a significant liberalization, admittedly through regulation, of gun possession."

[...]

With regard to ordinary gun possession, as opposed to manufacture, the 1938 Nazi gun laws represented a further liberalization of gun control. In fact, most of the changes in the law with regard to possession and carrying reflected a loosening of the regulations, not a tightening. The Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 (the "1938 Law") is patterned on the 1928 Law. The two laws have the same structure, similar section headings, and broadly similar language.

Point well taken: Hitler only disarmed the people he wanted to eradicate

 

[Lakhota]

Eventually, the 2nd Amendment will be reinterpreted/updated to meet 21st century realities. It's long overdue.

 

[Anathema]

Eventually, the 2nd Amendment will be reinterpreted/updated to meet 21st century realities. It's long overdue.

If it us, you'll see a Third American Revolution. Is that what you want?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How bad was our cavalry that they didn't eradicate the lakota when they had the chance. This tribe had to be looked down upon by all other tribes in the country, at the time, as the short bus.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Eventually, the 2nd Amendment will be reinterpreted/updated to meet 21st century realities. It's long overdue.

You'll need this.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Best of luck.

 

[bripat9643]

seems to me that every American should own the small arms of the American infantry soldier Lakhota .

I agree - just like when the Second Amendment was written.

The internet didn't exist in 1789. Does that mean the government can censor it?