There is no idea like an idea whose time has come: It is time to amend the Second Amendment.

[Rumpole]

Rumpole was a typical British character, quirky, and cheap, but ultimately an honorable, and ethical man. Qualities, you lack.

Rumpole was not a British actor nor was he typical. Rumpole was a brilliant but humble character created by British writer and barrister John Mortimer, played by Leo McKern, a British actor in the TV series, 'Rumpole of the Bailey'.

If you are going to make a statement of fact, be accurate in language, otherwise, methinks your mind is mush and you are lazy, and no doubt, it and you, probably are.

The essence of the debate is the evidence, substantiation and a compelling argument, and that is what YOU lack.

That is all that matters. You don't matter, nor do I, nor does our anonymity via the handles we choose, a detail which, clearly, eludes you

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

You u understand the second amendment cannot be simply edited?

To implement your idea - whatever it may be - you would first have to repeal the 2nd.

Which I'm guesdingvis your real aim. All the 2nd says is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In what ways do you propose inringing it?

In retrospect, I should have framed it as a 28th amendment to update the second. The right assured in the second will not be infringed in the 28th.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Shall not infringe requires no nuance. The only seeds OP is planting are tyrannical.

Kleptocrats Disarming Victims of Other Thieves

"The security of a free state" is more important, and that requires personal protection against criminals, which is not something the National Guard is used for. Counting isolated pioneers threatened by Indian savages, banditos, and roaming thugs, that has been absolutely necessary even before the ruling class's Constitution made it look like the Founding Fodder really cared about the 99%. The fact is they wanted a self-armed and self-trained militia only because they were too cheap to fund a standing army.

 

[westwall]

Rumpole was not a British actor nor was he typical. Rumpole was a brilliant but humble character created by British writer and barrister John Mortimer, played by Leo McKern, a British actor in the TV series, 'Rumpole of the Bailey'.

If you are going to make a statement of fact, be accurate in language, otherwise, methinks your mind is mush and you are lazy, and no doubt, it and you, probably are.

The essence of the debate is the evidence, substantiation and a compelling argument, and that is what YOU lack.

That is all that matters. You don't matter, nor do I, nor does our anonymity via the handles we choose, a detail which, clearly, eludes you

Cheers,
Rumpole

I was accurate, I said CHARACTER, not actor. What I am is busy, and tired of bumptious, haughty, and arrogant (my oh my, I am being superfluously redundant, aren't I) individuals who are not even half as educated, nor experienced, as I am. Who go to great pains to try and impress their betters due to some intellectual, or mental defect inherent in their very being.

Such as yourself.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I realize this proposal is stirring up a proverbial hornet's nest, and the idea has about as much of a chance as catching a cloud with a fishnet. Nevertheless, I believe it is time to at least start the conversation. Think of this conversation as planting a seed. There is an old saying: "There is no idea like one whose time has come." I think this idea is just that – an idea whose time has come. And that idea is to amend the Second Amendment.

It is indeed a pressing concern to address the issue of gun violence in the United States, particularly when it comes to school shootings. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, the changing landscape of American society has led to calls for re-evaluating and amending this constitutional provision. The proposed "2A v.2" offers a nuanced approach to addressing this issue, allowing states to regulate guns as they see fit while still preserving the right to own firearms for specific purposes.

First, it is crucial to acknowledge that the context in which the Second Amendment was written has evolved significantly. The original intent of the framers was to ensure the ability of citizens to form a well-regulated militia, as a check against potential tyranny. However, as former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens pointed out, the National Guard now serves the purpose of a militia, making the original rationale for the Second Amendment less applicable to modern society.

Second, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment balances the need for individual rights with public safety. It respects the right to own single-shot bolt action rifles for hunting, self-defense, and sustenance purposes, as well as the right to own handguns at the state level. These provisions acknowledge the cultural and historical significance of gun ownership in America, while providing a framework for states to enact regulations that reflect the values and needs of their citizens.

Third, by allowing cities the right to ban handguns, the proposed amendment recognizes the unique challenges urban areas face when it comes to gun violence. The density and diversity of city populations can contribute to higher rates of crime, and localized handgun bans may be an effective way to address this issue. This proposal also respects the principle of local control, empowering cities to implement solutions tailored to their specific circumstances. Note that in the old west, many small towns required residents, when entering the town's borders, to turn in their guns to the local sheriff's office, yet no one complained about the second amendment. Since the NRA has become such a central force in opposing any regulation of arms, which, in my view, their efforts make it difficult for states and municipalities to regulate arms as the see fit, as they see are needed for their state's circumstances, circumstances with vary, not only from state to state, but from region to region, I feel this is an idea whose time has come.

Finally, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment maintains the spirit of the Second Amendment while adapting it to address the modern reality of gun violence. It offers a flexible framework for states and cities to develop regulations that protect public safety without infringing on individual rights. By updating the Second Amendment in this way, the United States can work towards reducing the devastating impact of gun violence while still respecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Also note that since I am not an expert on rifles, my view on single-shot bolt action versus semi automatic rifles is not solidified in my proposal, and I remain open to arguments presented by experts on their reasoning for continuing to allow for semi-automatic rifles. Also note that the amendment allows states to allow for semi-automatics--remember, a constitutional amendment is not a ban whatsoever, it is just being amended to allow states more freedom to regulate without interference from, what I personally view as, second amendment radical groups such as the NRA. Obviously, the NRA and it's hard core believers will oppose this idea, and I expect that.

What argument I reject is the one that goes; "if you ban guns only criminals will have guns". I reject it given that since the stern regulation, the hurdles placed on the path to owning a fully automatic machine gun have vastly reduced crimes for that particular weapon, there are very view crimes committed with them. Remember, 'I am not an expert" and if my reasoning is faulty, I invite your arguments to the contrary, and, of course, that goes for this entire proposal. The details, I'm asserting, are subject to negotiation, but I do feel the time has come for an amendment to the second amendment, one that will allow states and cities more freedom to regulate arms as they see fit, for the needs or their states and municipalities.

In conclusion, although the idea of amending the Second Amendment may seem like a difficult conversation to initiate, it is essential to plant the seed of change in order to address the pressing issue of gun violence in the United States. The "2A v.2" proposal offers a balanced and nuanced approach that respects individual rights, public safety, and local control. By engaging in this conversation, we can explore potential solutions and work towards creating a safer society for all.

*So, ladies and gentlemen, "fire away" (with your affirmations, discussions, and debate/counter arguments. Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun ).

Humbly tendered,
Rumpole

**************************************************************​

*Caveat: rude comments, "TLDL" comments, snarky and lazy retorts, disingenuous comments, ad nauseum, will be ignored.

/----/ "I believe it is time to at least start the conversation."
Start???? Start??? Gun grabbers have been yapping about gun control, common sense gun laws, repealing the 2nd Amendment, and confiscation since 1965. Where have you been? Ever hear of shall not be infringed?"
I'm assuming you'll ignore this for one of the above-mentioned provisions.

 

[Cellblock2429]

As Rumpole suggests, it's not possible and it would make no difference anyway.

The issue that must be addressed is America's culture of violence, continuous wars, and killing. The many millions of guns lying around only facilitate the culture.

Micheal Moore had this pinned down years ago with his 'Bowling for Columbine'. America has decided that accepting the guilt is not worth the lives of the school children or innocent citizens.

Can anybody accept the blame and make Rumpole's efforts worthwhile?

/-----/ "Can anybody accept the blame and make Rumpole's efforts worthwhile?"
Lock up criminals and stop turning them loose. How will Rumpole disarm gangs and common criminals?

 

[Blackrook]

Giving the government a monopoly on gun ownership will make the government hard to overthrow if it becomes a tyranny.

 

[westwall]

Giving the government a monopoly on gun ownership will make the government hard to overthrow if it becomes a tyranny.

That's the whole point. And why the 2nd was written.

 

[Cellblock2429]

That's the whole point. And why the 2nd was written.

/----/ And why Rumpole wants to eliminate it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

In retrospect, I should have framed it as a 28th amendment to update the second. The right assured in the second will not be infringed in the 28th.

Then what would change?

 

[Donald H]

/-----/ "Can anybody accept the blame and make Rumpole's efforts worthwhile?"
Lock up criminals and stop turning them loose. How will Rumpole disarm gangs and common criminals?

Lock up the whole fkn country if it was up to me!

 

[westwall]

Lock up the whole fkn country if it was up to me!

Well of course, that IS the FASCIST WAY!

First goal is to lock every one up. Then murder them.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Donald H]

Well of course, that IS the FASCIST WAY!

First goal is to lock every one up. Then murder them.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Stop wasting my time you goof!

 

[Rumpole]

Then what would change?

THat is elaborated in the OP. Just change 'amending 2A' to '28th amendment to update and replace 2A'. Everything else posted in the OP will be the same.

 

[Rumpole]

/----/ "I believe it is time to at least start the conversation."
Start???? Start??? Gun grabbers have been yapping about gun control, common sense gun laws, repealing the 2nd Amendment, and confiscation since 1965. Where have you been? Ever hear of shall not be infringed?"
I'm assuming you'll ignore this for one of the above-mentioned provisions.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has the right to regulate arms within constitutional constraints and that such is not an infringement. See, 2A only goes to the right. What shall not be infringed? The 'right'. Nothing more.

For more information, see:

1. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home. However, the Court also made it clear that this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation.
2. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Building on the Heller decision, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. This means that state and local governments cannot infringe on the right to bear arms for self-defense, but they may regulate the possession and use of firearms in accordance with constitutional principles.
3. United States v. Miller (1939): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms that are "in common use" and have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Court also held that the government has the authority to regulate firearms that are not of the type protected by the Second Amendment.

However, I am proposing a 28th amendment witch will expand upon the 2nd, update it, replace it, and give states more freedom to regulate arms as each state sees fit.

IF that were ever adapted, your point would be moot. But, within constitutional constraints, it is already moot given the above.

 

[Cellblock2429]

THat is elaborated in the OP. Just change 'amending 2A' to '28th amendment to update and replace 2A'. Everything else posted in the OP will be the same.

/——/ Leave our Bill of Rights alone, Gun grabber. Got plans to dis arm criminals? You think Chicago gangs give a rats ass about any Amendment?

 

[Mac-7]

However, I am proposing a 28th amendment witch will expand upon the 2nd, update it, replace it, and give states more freedom to regulate arms as each state sees fit.

You mean give libs more power to take guns away

Which is what you will do till only criminals have guns

 

[westwall]

Ahhhhh, now you want to kill me don't you!

 

[Rumpole]

I was accurate, I said CHARACTER, not actor. What I am is busy, and tired of bumptious, haughty, and arrogant (my oh my, I am being superfluously redundant, aren't I) individuals who are not even half as educated, nor experienced, as I am. Who go to great pains to try and impress their betters due to some intellectual, or mental defect inherent in their very being.

Such as yourself.

Good, I stand corrected. But not on the remainder, which is to say, the salient points.

Oh, perhaps you didn't get the memo; one's credentials or education bear no weight nor consequence in the realm of anonymous discourse on the world wide web.

You and I, we do not matter -- we are of little consequence. The cogency of the argument stands paramount and shall succeed or falter based on it's merits.

Alas, it appears that your esteemed education has left you bereft of this fundamental understanding.

And, if my style irritates you, well, I'm not losing any sleep over it, pardon the cliché.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

 

[airplanemechanic]

"Single shot bolt action rifles for self defense."

Yea, go fuck yourself.