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

[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.

Your speculations are quite speculative.

Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

YEPP.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

While we're taking away people's freedoms by cancelling the 2nd amendment, let's beef up the 1st amendment to require everyone to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

Actually, if the First Amendment were to be 'beefed up,' we would see the opposite effect.

 

[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.

Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?

Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.

 

[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.

Your speculations are quite speculative.

Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?

Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.

False. It is VERY relevant.

Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.

A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:



Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Amendments to the Constitution can be neither 'amended' nor 'rewritten,' they can only be repealed, just as the 21st Amendment was enacted to repeal the 18th.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently in its infancy, still evolving, where there will eventually develop a clear, comprehensive understanding of what firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional and which are not.

Moreover, incidents such as occurred in Oregon cannot be addressed with additional firearms regulation, as that was a failure to detect someone suffering from mental illness; had the individual responsible received the mental health treatment he so clearly needed, he would not have committed his horrendous act of violence, whether he was in possession of firearms or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Given your posting history – this post included – you're in no position to refer to someone else as 'dummy.'

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?

Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.

False. It is VERY relevant.

Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.

A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:



Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.

"The main advantage of the British Army was that the infantry soldier trained at this procedure almost every day. A properly trained group of regular infantry soldiers was able to load and fire four rounds per minute. A crack infantry company could load and fire five rounds in a minute."

Musket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And still not relevant.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?

Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.

False. It is VERY relevant.

Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.

A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:



Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.

No...wrong again...Had they known that the government would have fully automatic rifles they would have made sure that the citizens could have them as well....without infringement....since the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government in line....

 

[EverCurious]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

 

[Sallow]

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?

The Second Amendment says more than what you posted.

There are several requirements.

1. You are part of a militia.
2. You are engaged in defending the state.
3. You are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the Commander in Chief.

Case law screwed that up.

And that's what needs to be addressed.

 

[2aguy]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

Sorry...you can't let the left have anything like this...they never give back a freedom once they take it....there is no compromising on basic human Rights.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Should be completely repealed. Pleanty of countries get on just fine and a lot better than us without 2nd amendments.

Move then freak

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

The Second Amendment says more than what you posted.

There are several requirements.

1. You are part of a militia.
2. You are engaged in defending the state.
3. You are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the Commander in Chief.

Case law screwed that up.

And that's what needs to be addressed.

None of those are requirements.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment"

The Second Amendment does not need to be 'fixed.'

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI – and that includes the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense; and like other rights the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government – current Second Amendment jurisprudence prohibits government from disallowing the possession of all and any firearms, handguns in particular, but specific types of weapons may be prohibited, such as those considered 'dangerous and unusual.'

But again: Oregon isn't a Second Amendment 'issue,' it's a mental health issue, a public policy issue, an issue that requires the American people to demand that their elected officials take seriously the issue of mental health, that the funding and resources needed are made available to ensure that those suffering from mental illness receive the treatment they need to prevent such tragedies from occurring again – separate and apart from the issue of regulating firearms.

 

[skookerasbil]

Zero chance of this happening

Record number of Americans oppose handgun ban


Only Disney dwellers would think of starting a thread like this!!

These types of debates exist only in the realm of the internet political forums. Nowhere else. Take a gander over to FACEBOOK right now.......nobody is caring.

 

[Freiheit]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

If you would even consider trusting the fed to do this I have some prime ocean front property in Tucson I can let you have at fire sale prices.

 

[EverCurious]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

Sorry...you can't let the left have anything like this...they never give back a freedom once they take it....there is no compromising on basic human Rights.

I know the feel, real hard to trust when even their highest who get elected do so regularly...

hmmm how about something more along the lines of my universal background check voter id thing for buying guns (rather than the amendment stuff)? If you don't have the id/ubc then you can't buy without court approval?

 

[Rustic]

Any messing around with second admendment is the end of what little freedom we have left... We don't want to be like that cess pool that is Europe.

 

[EverCurious]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

If you would even consider trusting the fed to do this I have some prime ocean front property in Tucson I can let you have at fire sale prices.

Do you actually think that our politicians are /that/ corrupt? I mean I know they're sellouts and liars, but I think abusing something like this is far past what they'd be willing to do...