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

[Iron Head]

It should be amended to include this quote, courtesy of Metallica: "Metal up your ass!"

 

[Rustic]

That's why I live in the northern plains... As far from the cess pool that is Europe I can get.

 

[EverCurious]

In the long run none of the debate matters really. Not with 3D printers. There is no way for the gov to stop it, an't track it, can't ban it, can't do anything about it.

I'm waiting to see what happens in countries with strict gun laws, like if peeps start printing guns and getting thrown in jail in droves or something.

 

[skookerasbil]

The individual right to possess a firearm is unrelated to militia service (DC v. Heller); indeed, the Amendment's reference to the militia is predicated on the reliance of the individual to possess his own personal firearm so that he might execute his responsibilities as a member of a militia, in no way mitigating or undermining the individual right:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

s0n.........100% irrelevant. Nobody cares about fringe sentiments on message boards. You have the political IQ of a small soap dish!!!

Record number of Americans oppose handgun ban


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/happy_man_laughing_8.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Indeed..........in 2015, gun grabbers have never been as unpopular in America!!!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Again, your fantastical speculations are most speculative.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Indeed..........in 2015, gun grabbers have never been as unpopular in America!!!

Wonder why?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

I am not against a universal background check.

That said, given the history of this issue beginning in the 20th Century, and most recently the behavior of those opposed to the 2nd Amendment, I am not prone to compromise.

Compromise is simply incremental destruction. I will give up nothing to salve the fear of cretinous bores and busybodies, or permit a slow destruction of the right.

They can deal with the criminals and the crazies, or not. Leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Rustic]

Obama, common sense and realty is not your wheel house...

Join the NRA... YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Please post references from the Founding Fathers that indicate the above is what they had in mind, as that was not a consideration until the 20th Century.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Do you actually think that our politicians are /that/ corrupt?

Save all but a handful, yes.

 

[Rustic]

History is full of do-gooders... Most of which will be forgotten.

Obama get out of the shallow end of the pool... And be remembered

 

[JimBowie1958]

Obama, common sense and realty is not your wheel house...

Join the NRA... YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.

NO! Don't encourage the libtards to join the NRA, please.

 

[Rustic]

Universal background checks???
What does that mean??

Enforce current laws we don't have the time or money for silly useless new laws remember the country is broke.

Is that all the weak minded fools can come up with?? Universal background checks??

 

[Sallow]

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.

Please post references from the Founding Fathers that indicate the above is what they had in mind, as that was not a consideration until the 20th Century.

How about posting stuff from the Constitution?

Would that work?

Probably not.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Please post references from the Founding Fathers that indicate the above is what they had in mind, as that was not a consideration until the 20th Century.

How about posting stuff from the Constitution?

Would that work?

Probably not.

Please do.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Indeed..........in 2015, gun grabbers have never been as unpopular in America!!!

Wonder why?

Awesome. You are a genius. All we have to do is mimic the way that Switzerland deals with firearms.

Let's do it.

Your stats are incorrect, by the way. As if you care.

 

[Rustic]

The second admendment is my gun permit and background check...

 

[LoneLaugher]

The second admendment is my gun permit and background check...

Gee wiz! You are so cool I can hardly stand it!

 

[Rustic]

I know... Typical of a constitutionalist