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

[Auld Phart]

Don't be afraid to read this piece........it's one of the best I've found on the issue and it comes from a very knowledgeable source.


The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Those are five reasonable words.

Reasonable?

What age limits do you feel necessary for belonging to a militia?

18-45?

any gender qualifications?

Why? We have military personnel in their 50s.
And we have both genders in the military.
And why should a 15 year old have a gun, anyway?

I would say 17 and up, both genders (of course).

I'm in my mid 60s, and I go to the range with people, men and women, older than I.

Physically, I couldn't get into a militia unless they had a wheelchair brigade, and even then it might be difficult.

I'm not worried about these 5 words ever being put into the 2nd.


Far too many congressmen, governors, etc will nip it in the bud

 

[candycorn]

And what are we going to do when, in about 60 years, people can carry portable nuclear devices on their arms like a watch? Are we will gonna say that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to carry such a weapon, or not? Does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right for a civilian to walk around with a grenade launcher? Because that is being "armed" as well. How about Napalm throwers? Does the 2nd prohibit those? They are also weapons for defense. How about EMP guns?

When and where will it stop?

Puerile nonsense.

I get an increasing impression that Democrats as a group somehow stop progressing somewhere in middle school. Their arguments are becoming more petulant, shrill and devoid of logic.

I think it is an actual problem in their brains.....they have all other normal functions...but when it comes to understanding the truth, reality, the difference between good and evil and right and wrong....something in their brain can't compute it......that is why they think the way they do.....

Total garbage.

A 5 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. To argue that someone who can post crap on the Internet can't know what they are doing is wrong is a gun nut trying to take the blame away from where it belongs.

 

[dannyboys]

Tell that to the Germans.....

So stuck in 1933, you are. Poor you.

Actually the gun control in Germany happened before 1933...the nazis just exploited it...and the French also disarmed after WW1.....and it is called history....it happened and you guys obviously don't understand it.........

Unarmed populations are easily slaughtered when their governments turn bad...that is the lesson of history that you morons miss.....

Right, in 1933. 1933 is not 2015.

Are you brain dead?

Tell that to the Syrians, the Kurds, the Yzidis, the Mexicans.....or the residents of gun controlled Baltimore or D.C or Chicago......

Why do you guys think that what the Germans did can't happen again? What do you think the Russians are doing to the civilians in the Ukraine...do you think they are being kind and warm hearted to the civilians in their occupied areas......

and Mexico.....their government agents are working with drug cartels and murdering unarmed Mexican citizens in the thousands........

This is why you guys can't be allowed to have power.....

Silly nutter. I'm not suggesting that civilians should not be armed in the event of a tyrannical government. That is YOU being a dishonest opposing voice.

You have lied to yourself so often regarding this subject....that yiu no longer know what the truth is. And....you behave like a dick. Bad combination.

Soooo. You claim the "civilians" only need to be armed in the event of a tyrannical government.
Soo. A "tyrannical government arises and THEN everyone runs to a gun shop to buy a gun. You really are a dummy.
THE WHOLE POINT of having an armed militia and allowing citizens to bear arms is to PREVENT the rise of a tyrannical power.
If no citizen was allowed to bear arms today just imagine what BOBO would be doing to ANYONE who didn't bow down to him.
I truly believe the only thing keeping BOBO from declaring martial law and confiscating every citizen's guns is the fact that citizens with guns are preventing him from doing so.

 

[candycorn]

Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?

"When was the last time somebody drove a car and killed 20 children and six teachers on purpose? When was the last time someone took a syringe full of "flu" into a movie theater to wipe out 12 people on purpose?" Ud

Needed gun legislation in Politics Forum

Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.

So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.

Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?

Yes. The 2nd amendment needs a tweaking, but should not be completely thrown overboard.

No. People said the same thing when there were morons running around burning flags under the 1st amendment. Leave the document alone.

 

[Auld Phart]

Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?

Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.

So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?

Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.

Perhaps you should take a look into the history of firearms.

 

[Geaux4it]

Don't be afraid to read this piece........it's one of the best I've found on the issue and it comes from a very knowledgeable source.


The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Those are five reasonable words.

But that's not what the founders meant

-Geaux

 

[candycorn]

So stuck in 1933, you are. Poor you.

Actually the gun control in Germany happened before 1933...the nazis just exploited it...and the French also disarmed after WW1.....and it is called history....it happened and you guys obviously don't understand it.........

Unarmed populations are easily slaughtered when their governments turn bad...that is the lesson of history that you morons miss.....

Right, in 1933. 1933 is not 2015.

Are you brain dead?

Tell that to the Syrians, the Kurds, the Yzidis, the Mexicans.....or the residents of gun controlled Baltimore or D.C or Chicago......

Why do you guys think that what the Germans did can't happen again? What do you think the Russians are doing to the civilians in the Ukraine...do you think they are being kind and warm hearted to the civilians in their occupied areas......

and Mexico.....their government agents are working with drug cartels and murdering unarmed Mexican citizens in the thousands........

This is why you guys can't be allowed to have power.....

Silly nutter. I'm not suggesting that civilians should not be armed in the event of a tyrannical government. That is YOU being a dishonest opposing voice.

You have lied to yourself so often regarding this subject....that yiu no longer know what the truth is. And....you behave like a dick. Bad combination.

Soooo. You claim the "civilians" only need to be armed in the event of a tyrannical government.
Soo. A "tyrannical government arises and THEN everyone runs to a gun shop to buy a gun. You really are a dummy.
THE WHOLE POINT of having an armed militia and allowing citizens to bear arms is to PREVENT the rise of a tyrannical power.
If no citizen was allowed to bear arms today just imagine what BOBO would be doing to ANYONE who didn't bow down to him.
I truly believe the only thing keeping BOBO from declaring martial law and confiscating every citizen's guns is the fact that citizens with guns are preventing him from doing so.

The fed's last concern is being out-gunned by anyone.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?

Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.

So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?

Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.

Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?

Sure looks as if context is not your thing.

 

[sear]

"If we had to correct the 2nd Amendment it should simply say...the People of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms for personal defense and defense against a tyrannical government and this right shall not be infringed by local, state, or the Federal government." 2a #41

That might upset a whole lot of:
- hunters
- target shooters
- videographers
- collectors
- antique dealers,
- etc.

In addition, your proposed wording would vastly expand gun rights.
Your " shall not be infringed by local, state, or the Federal government " wording would affect today's gun status at:
- U.S. post offices
- U.S. public schools
- U.S. municipal buildings
- U.S. airports
- Commercial airliners in U.S. jurisdiction
- courts of law in the U.S.
- etc.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Don't be afraid to read this piece........it's one of the best I've found on the issue and it comes from a very knowledgeable source.


The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Those are five reasonable words.

But that's not what the founders meant

-Geaux

Really, are you so sure?

 

[candycorn]

Don't be afraid to read this piece........it's one of the best I've found on the issue and it comes from a very knowledgeable source.


The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Those are five reasonable words.

But that's not what the founders meant

-Geaux

The framers put it into the document; they must have done it for a reason.

 

[2aguy]

Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?

Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.

So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?

Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.

Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?

Sure looks as if context is not your thing.

Yes...because they would have realized that the government would have those weapons and so the only way to balance that would be an armed citizenry...oh yeah...the founders actually stated that......

 

[dannyboys]

Actually the gun control in Germany happened before 1933...the nazis just exploited it...and the French also disarmed after WW1.....and it is called history....it happened and you guys obviously don't understand it.........

Unarmed populations are easily slaughtered when their governments turn bad...that is the lesson of history that you morons miss.....

Right, in 1933. 1933 is not 2015.

Are you brain dead?

Tell that to the Syrians, the Kurds, the Yzidis, the Mexicans.....or the residents of gun controlled Baltimore or D.C or Chicago......

Why do you guys think that what the Germans did can't happen again? What do you think the Russians are doing to the civilians in the Ukraine...do you think they are being kind and warm hearted to the civilians in their occupied areas......

and Mexico.....their government agents are working with drug cartels and murdering unarmed Mexican citizens in the thousands........

This is why you guys can't be allowed to have power.....

Silly nutter. I'm not suggesting that civilians should not be armed in the event of a tyrannical government. That is YOU being a dishonest opposing voice.

You have lied to yourself so often regarding this subject....that yiu no longer know what the truth is. And....you behave like a dick. Bad combination.

Soooo. You claim the "civilians" only need to be armed in the event of a tyrannical government.
Soo. A "tyrannical government arises and THEN everyone runs to a gun shop to buy a gun. You really are a dummy.
THE WHOLE POINT of having an armed militia and allowing citizens to bear arms is to PREVENT the rise of a tyrannical power.
If no citizen was allowed to bear arms today just imagine what BOBO would be doing to ANYONE who didn't bow down to him.
I truly believe the only thing keeping BOBO from declaring martial law and confiscating every citizen's guns is the fact that citizens with guns are preventing him from doing so.

The fed's last concern is being out-gunned by anyone.

You're a dummy.
Imagine what would happen if BOBO ordered the NG and the military be begin massive gun confiscation.
For one thing the NG would tell BOBO to go fuck himself.
The military which BTW despises BOBO generally wouldn't lift a finger to help him.
He'd end up in front of a firing squad if he tried to confiscate civilian's guns.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So stuck in 1933, you are. Poor you.

Actually the gun control in Germany happened before 1933...the nazis just exploited it...and the French also disarmed after WW1.....and it is called history....it happened and you guys obviously don't understand it.........

Unarmed populations are easily slaughtered when their governments turn bad...that is the lesson of history that you morons miss.....

Right, in 1933. 1933 is not 2015.

Are you brain dead?

Tell that to the Syrians, the Kurds, the Yzidis, the Mexicans.....or the residents of gun controlled Baltimore or D.C or Chicago......

Why do you guys think that what the Germans did can't happen again? What do you think the Russians are doing to the civilians in the Ukraine...do you think they are being kind and warm hearted to the civilians in their occupied areas......

and Mexico.....their government agents are working with drug cartels and murdering unarmed Mexican citizens in the thousands........

This is why you guys can't be allowed to have power.....

Silly nutter. I'm not suggesting that civilians should not be armed in the event of a tyrannical government. That is YOU being a dishonest opposing voice.

You have lied to yourself so often regarding this subject....that yiu no longer know what the truth is. And....you behave like a dick. Bad combination.

Soooo. You claim the "civilians" only need to be armed in the event of a tyrannical government.
Soo. A "tyrannical government arises and THEN everyone runs to a gun shop to buy a gun. You really are a dummy.
THE WHOLE POINT of having an armed militia and allowing citizens to bear arms is to PREVENT the rise of a tyrannical power.
If no citizen was allowed to bear arms today just imagine what BOBO would be doing to ANYONE who didn't bow down to him.
I truly believe the only thing keeping BOBO from declaring martial law and confiscating every citizen's guns is the fact that citizens with guns are preventing him from doing so.

You are being dishonest. I never said that anyone needs to go buy a gun. They will already have guns. Why do you need to lie to make your point?

 

[2aguy]

"If we had to correct the 2nd Amendment it should simply say...the People of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms for personal defense and defense against a tyrannical government and this right shall not be infringed by local, state, or the Federal government." 2a #41

That might upset a whole lot of:
- hunters
- target shooters
- videographers
- collectors
- antique dealers,
- etc.

In addition, your proposed wording would vastly expand gun rights.
Your " shall not be infringed by local, state, or the Federal government " wording would affect today's gun status at:
- U.S. post offices
- U.S. public schools
- U.S. municipal buildings
- U.S. airports
- Commercial airliners in U.S. jurisdiction
- courts of law in the U.S.
- etc.

How does my new wording affect those groups....we can add them in, I have no problem with that...good point.


Yep......and in public places rights should not be abridged....an airport is a private business and therefore has the right to limit guns...everywhere else....courts.....sure, they can have a gun check in at the door......cause criminals have already used guns in courtrooms to kill people even with current gun laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?

"When was the last time somebody drove a car and killed 20 children and six teachers on purpose? When was the last time someone took a syringe full of "flu" into a movie theater to wipe out 12 people on purpose?" Ud

Needed gun legislation in Politics Forum

Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.

So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.

Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Individuals have a fundamental right to possess firearms, there is no right to drive.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And....Dannyboy......you freak. Obama isn't interested in taking over the country or taking your guns. You major weirdo. You are the type of person who gives the 2A freaks their bad name.

 

[candycorn]

Right, in 1933. 1933 is not 2015.

Are you brain dead?

Tell that to the Syrians, the Kurds, the Yzidis, the Mexicans.....or the residents of gun controlled Baltimore or D.C or Chicago......

Why do you guys think that what the Germans did can't happen again? What do you think the Russians are doing to the civilians in the Ukraine...do you think they are being kind and warm hearted to the civilians in their occupied areas......

and Mexico.....their government agents are working with drug cartels and murdering unarmed Mexican citizens in the thousands........

This is why you guys can't be allowed to have power.....

Silly nutter. I'm not suggesting that civilians should not be armed in the event of a tyrannical government. That is YOU being a dishonest opposing voice.

You have lied to yourself so often regarding this subject....that yiu no longer know what the truth is. And....you behave like a dick. Bad combination.

Soooo. You claim the "civilians" only need to be armed in the event of a tyrannical government.
Soo. A "tyrannical government arises and THEN everyone runs to a gun shop to buy a gun. You really are a dummy.
THE WHOLE POINT of having an armed militia and allowing citizens to bear arms is to PREVENT the rise of a tyrannical power.
If no citizen was allowed to bear arms today just imagine what BOBO would be doing to ANYONE who didn't bow down to him.
I truly believe the only thing keeping BOBO from declaring martial law and confiscating every citizen's guns is the fact that citizens with guns are preventing him from doing so.

The fed's last concern is being out-gunned by anyone.

You're a dummy.
Imagine what would happen if BOBO ordered the NG and the military be begin massive gun confiscation.
For one thing the NG would tell BOBO to go fuck himself.
The military which BTW despises BOBO generally wouldn't lift a finger to help him.
He'd end up in front of a firing squad if he tried to confiscate civilian's guns.

Your cartoonish view of the world is funny.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?

Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.

So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?

Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.

Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?

Sure looks as if context is not your thing.

Your speculations are quite speculative.

 

[candycorn]

And....Dannyboy......you freak. Obama isn't interested in taking over the country or taking your guns. You major weirdo. You are the type of person who gives the 2A freaks their bad name.

Very true.