Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ... ?

[hunarcy]

If you spend your days walking down the street worried somebody is going to off themselves and take you with them, you have more problems than guns. As many guns there are now, how do you suppose you aren't dead yet? Why do you want to take a gun away from guy who won't do any harm to you. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Let people have their guns. Nobody is forcing you to own one.

I don't spend my day doing that because I live in a country that has hardly any firearms. I don't expect to die via a firearm, and that the vast, vast, vast majority of people in the US don't either. However, I don't understand why there can't be certain restrictions on some types of firearms like assault weapons.

Think about this, when it comes to firearms the US has more in common with the Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Angola etc than it does with Canada, Australia, UK, France etc. Tell me, of those two groups of societies, which one would you live in?

Then here's an idea. You live in your nation and leave us alone.

 

[Dr Grump]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

 

[Dr Grump]

Nope. It's people. If they don't have guns, they'll use knifes and swords and hammers and bricks.

And it's so much harder to outrun a knife, hammer or brick compared to a bullet, right?

 

[Dr Grump]

Then here's an idea. You live in your nation and leave us alone.

Here's an idea, how about the US keep out of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Vietnam, Nicaragua <insert country where the US has stuck its nose into> and we have a deal...

 

[2aguy]

"Think about this, when it comes to firearms the US has more in common with the Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Angola etc than it does with Canada, Australia, UK, France etc. Tell me, of those two groups of societies, which one would you live in?"

I'm not willing to allow any of those countries to overrule my basic right to defend myself, my family, and my property. The decisions on how to do that belong to me; not any government. Tyranny is not a new concept and it is no less nasty now than it ever was.

Europe sent 12 million people to death camps....recently experienced ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and Russia just invaded the Ukraine.....and has a history of murdering 25 million people...and insist that the people should trust their governments to keep them safe......

 

[LOki]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

The militia is not the entity identified with the right.

 

[danielpalos]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

No, it doesn't, because natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

Why do you choose to be wrong about this?

 

[danielpalos]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

Why do you choose to be wrong about this?

he is not wrong; there are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment, should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues as any form of equal work for equal pay.

 

[Dr Grump]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain. The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed. Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

 

[LOki]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain.

Not relavent.

The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed.

OK. Still not relavent.

Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

I can't wait for your explanation for this.

 

[LOki]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain.

Not relavent.

The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed.

OK. Still not relevant.

Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

I can't wait for you to explain this.

 

[danielpalos]

dears, what is not relevant, is legislation from the bench; it is null and void from Inception. Only our federal Congress may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper, and have them enacted as laws in our federal Union.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain

Times like...oh... today?
The necessity for an en effective means to project deadly force during the act of self-defense will never, ever go away.

 

[9thIDdoc]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain. The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed. Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

You are obviously far behind on current events.

 

[9thIDdoc]

dears, what is not relevant, is legislation from the bench; it is null and void from Inception. Only our federal Congress may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper, and have them enacted as laws in our federal Union.

Never heard of State and local law?

 

[Dr Grump]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain.

Not relavent.

The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed.

OK. Still not relavent.

Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

I can't wait for your explanation for this.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. You have to look at context and why something came about. That's all that I'm doing...

 

[LOki]

At the end of the day folks, the second amendment was written at a time when times were a lot more uncertain.

Not relavent.

The borders of the US weren't even decided and there was no standing army. That was the intent. Get everybody together if the shit hit the fan and make sure they are armed.

OK. Still not relavent.

Times have changed. It's time you guys did too.

I can't wait for your explanation for this.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. You have to look at context and why something came about. That's all that I'm doing...

No. You're not. That's why it's not relevant. Otherwise, you'd demonstrate that relavency.

 

[danielpalos]

dears, what is not relevant, is legislation from the bench; it is null and void from Inception. Only our federal Congress may write words on formerly blank pieces of paper, and have them enacted as laws in our federal Union.

Never heard of State and local law?

dear, it is States that recognize and secure the concept of natural rights.

 

[martybegan]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, what the militia part is about is saying the feds cannot ban States from having their own armed forces.

Two different rights in the same amendment, but one allows the other, i.e. the people's RKBA allows the States to call militias.