More second amendment remedies

[2aguy]

If those two idiots had bare arms instead of guns we would not have these problems

Correct. There would be no more murders, robberies, or assaults, just like in all those European countries where people can't have guns. And remember how we stopped drug use in this country after we made them illegal?

Somewhat of an odd logic wouldn't you agree?

Just because we can't stop all gun crimes we shouldn't try to stop any

I'll take Europe's murder rates over ours any day

Except of course for the higher level of overall violent crime against innocent victims...which is far higher over there....and the fact that they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children.....just because they didn't like them....add that 12 million over the years with their normal murder rate and their murder rate is about 100,000 a year.....

 

[2aguy]

No, show us the link where 32,000 people a year kill someone's with a gun each year.

More Americans killed by guns than killed by cars


Thank GOD we have a second amendment t protect us

But cars do kill people therefore they must be banned.....using your idiotic logic

Who said anything about banning?

Lets do for guns what we do for cars.......license operators, register them, make the owners carry liability insurance

That brings us back to changing The Constitution.

It is already in the Constitution

How do you have well regulated militias without knowing who your gun owners are, that they are trained and responsible ?

Here you go.....read it and learn something about the 2nd Amendment...

Of Course the Second Amendment Protects an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, by David French, National Review

The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual right. Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of the document. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative clause; rather, it explains its purpose.

The operative clause is, of course, clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” As Scalia correctly observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the Bill of Rights uses the phrase “right of the people,” the text “unambiguously refer to individual rights.”

Further, the language clearly indicates that the amendment wasn’t creating a new right but recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language “shall not be infringed” indicates recognition, not creation. But what about the prefatory clause?

What does the a “well regulated militia” have to do with an individual right?

Scalia explained well in Heller: The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.