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

[Bob Blaylock]

The spectrum has some 16 million colors, and it's as if you can only see the pigments of red, yellow, and blue. If you can't see the wonderful nuance of ochre, cadmium, burnt umber, sienna and thalo green/blue, etc., etc., etc., what palette of joy can ever come to you, intellectually?

The human eye only sees three colors, red, green, and blue. Our eyes have sensors that are sensitive primarily to red, sensors that are primarily sensitive to green, and sensors that are primarily sensitive to blue. The brain interpolates all the other colors, based on the different levels we see of red, green, and blue.

That is why we can make usable displays, that only put out those three colors. Look at your screen under heavy magnification, and you'll see that the entire image is just made up of discrete red, blue, and green components.

That sixteen-million number, by the way, is artificial bullshit. It's not based on any really about how many colors there actually are, but on a common way of representing them in a digital format, as eight bits, or 256 levels, for each of red, green, and blue. Twenty-four bits total, per pixel. 2²⁴=16,777,216. My Nikon D3200 records 12 bits for each color, for a total of 36 bits to represent the color range that it can record. 2³⁶=68,719,476,736. So my camera can “see” over sixty-eight billion colors.

I know of some graphic formats that will store up to 16 bits per RGB color component, 48 bits per pixel. 2⁴⁸=281,474,976,710,656, or over two hundred eighty-one trillion.

The reality is that color is an analog phenomenon, and until we try to convert and store it in a digital manner, the number of actual colors is infinite and continuous.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Good thing, then, you're not an American, but a subject/slave of Canaduh. As such, your opinions on how Americas should be governed are, at best irrelevant, and a warning to us Americans about where Canaduh-style tyranny leads those unfortunate people who live under it; and a reminder of why our Second Amendment is so important. There are elements in our own society, in our own government, that would love to turn America into a Canaduh-style shithole.

 

[westwall]

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.

If you can't get the most basic facts correct, there ARE no salient "points" that you can utter.

 

[sparky]

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

I'll be buyin' more ammo in the morning......~S~

 

[Rumpole]

If you can't get the most basic facts correct, there ARE no salient "points" that you can utter.

One lesser point incorrect does not quell other points not dependent on that point.

Your logic fails.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

 

[Rumpole]

The human eye only sees three colors, red, green, and blue. Our eyes have sensors that are sensitive primarily to red, sensors that are primarily sensitive to green, and sensors that are primarily sensitive to blue. The brain interpolates all the other colors, based on the different levels we see of red, green, and blue.

That is why we can make usable displays, that only put out those three colors. Look at your screen under heavy magnification, and you'll see that the entire image is just made up of discrete red, blue, and green components.

That sixteen-million number, by the way, is artificial bullshit. It's not based on any really about how many colors there actually are, but on a common way of representing them in a digital format, as eight bits, or 256 levels, for each of red, green, and blue. Twenty-four bits total, per pixel. 2²⁴=16,777,216. My Nikon D3200 records 12 bits for each color, for a total of 36 bits to represent the color range that it can record. 2³⁶=68,719,476,736. So my camera can “see” over sixty-eight billion colors.

I know of some graphic formats that will store up to 16 bits per RGB color component, 48 bits per pixel. 2⁴⁸=281,474,976,710,656, or over two hundred eighty-one trillion.

The reality is that color is an analog phenomenon, and until we try to convert and store it in a digital manner, the number of actual colors is infinite and continuous.

My comment was a metaphor, not a nitpicking exercise into the biology of how the brain senses color.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

/——/ 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?

Cellblock 2429,

Premise #1. The constitution grants amendments for the very reason the framers did not want it to be an inflexible, static, document. They understood that nations grow, evolve, mores change, circumstances change, etc.

Premise #2. When in doubt, see premise #1.

Now then, please note that hysterics, emotional rants, have no place in the formulation of policy, laws, and the like.

In short, your comment is as irrelevant as its assumptions are incorrect, especially to the OP's premise.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

 

[Mac-7]

Cellblock 2429,

Premise #1. The constitution grants amendments for the very reason the framers did not want it to be an inflexible, static, document. They understood that nations grow, evolve, mores change, circumstances change, etc.

Premise #2. When in doubt, see premise #1.

Now then, please note that hysterics, emotional rants, have no place in the formulation of policy, laws, and the like.

In short, your comment is as irrelevant as its assumptions are incorrect, especially to the OP's premise.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

The Founders made it very difficult to amend the Constitution

Which leaves gun grabbers like you sucking air

 

[Cellblock2429]

Cellblock 2429,

Premise #1. The constitution grants amendments for the very reason the framers did not want it to be an inflexible, static, document. They understood that nations grow, evolve, mores change, circumstances change, etc.

Premise #2. When in doubt, see premise #1.

Now then, please note that hysterics, emotional rants, have no place in the formulation of policy, laws, and the like.

In short, your comment is as irrelevant as its assumptions are incorrect, especially to the OP's premise.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

/-----/ I don't question the reason we have amendments. I say leave the 2nd alone. There is nothing wrong with it. Your gun-grabbing plan will only disarm law abiding citizens.
Now stop dodging my questions.
Got plans to disarm criminals? Do you think Chicago gangs give a rat's ass about any Amendment?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Try it... I dare them to try it... its all talk... the dems would cease to be a party if they tried to undo the 2nd amendment.....

Try? Wake up.
They've already moved America to a point where SWAT teams are called if someone is seen with so much as a WATER GUN.
Walmarts have all but stopped selling ammo.
FFL's have been raided for their sales information and a National Registry Database created.
Many states now have Red Flag Laws that allow gun seizures based on anonymous "tips" by anyone.
Tell you what....TRY even getting a gun in NewYork, California or ANY Blue State at this point where they've installed a Progressive Governor.

TRY?

You literally must be kidding.
No one will do a thing and it's been proven time and time again.
All the talk you speak of otherwise is fantasy and Internet Tuff Guy Talk. Nothing more.
The VERY BEST you can possibly hope for is a FEW brave (and doomed) souls here and there to resist when they come to take them. That's it.
Denial is not going to stop them. Sorry, that's a losing strategy from the start.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My comment was a metaphor, not a nitpicking exercise into the biology of how the brain senses color.

And like the metaphor itself, the point that you thought you were making with it was just plain wrong. More obviously so, in fact.

 

[westwall]

Cellblock 2429,

Premise #1. The constitution grants amendments for the very reason the framers did not want it to be an inflexible, static, document. They understood that nations grow, evolve, mores change, circumstances change, etc.

Premise #2. When in doubt, see premise #1.

Now then, please note that hysterics, emotional rants, have no place in the formulation of policy, laws, and the like.

In short, your comment is as irrelevant as its assumptions are incorrect, especially to the OP's premise.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

The COTUS "GRANTS" nothing. It merely stipulates what IS natural law.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The COTUS "GRANTS" nothing. It merely stipulates what IS natural law.

So true.
But one thing more.....

Unless men actively sacrifice to defend these natural laws, power hungry maniacs will rule over them with an iron fist.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The 2nd Amendment today is hanging by a VERY weak thread.

You can deny it till you're blue in the face. Doesn't change reality.
The ONLY thing that they need to do now to entirely nullify the 2nd Amendment at this point is get Congress and the SCOTUS filled with enough people like the OP of this thread and it's over. They crave absolute power and you MUST be helpless for them to do that.

An effective army is not the possession of tools of war...it is the existence of men of courage determined to defend their freedom at any cost.
It is why America failed to defeat the enemy in Vietnam. It is why the 2A is doomed today. Admit it. You are scared of losing your SSI or your Pension etc..
They have you by the balls and you know it, but you still deny it. News Flash....you're going to lose it all anyway.

Let me put it this way.......
Gun Humpers argue that guns never go out and kill anyone on their own. Fair enough. I agree.
But by that exact same thought process....why do they think their guns will defend their RIGHTS all by themselves? THINK!

Again, for the morons.....I'm NOT advocating ANY sort of violence.
I'm just pointing out that all the tuff talk is too often not accompanied by ANY legal or obvious effort to do everything possible to stop the march towards eliminating the 2A. Like voting or like actively working to do everything possible to stop pumping cash into Progressive hands.
It's called talking the talk....but not walking the walk.

 

[Bell Huey]

Well, AZrailwhale, thanks for the nitpick. I'm going to research this, and get back to you, my gut feeling is that there is more to the story than that, but, I digress.

Okay, here's what I found:

The famous photo referred to banning firearms did not specify 'visitors', photo in the header of the URL.

Letter From Wild West — April 2021

Amid a surge of violence in Wild West towns, officials told the law-abiding to leave their guns at home

www.historynet.com

Tombstone ordinance 1881. "This provision does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city who with good faith and within reasonable time dispense with their deadly weapons." So, it appears that the visitors, not the residents, are excepted, within reasonable time limits.

Tombstone, Ariz., Ordinance 9 (Apr. 19, 1881) | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Sliding back to the matter at hand keep in mind there was no federal gun regulation until the NFA of Bill of rights untiil 1934 there was no federal gun control. That was about 143 years. Basically, if you owned a machine gun (any automatic is classified a machine gun by the ATF) you had to get a 200 dollar tax stamp which is equivalent to over 4000 of todays dollars.

Point being the framers as well as later legislative bodies had no interest in firearms legislation or amending the 2nd.

They left it to the states.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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.

Fine. Repeal it. What are you waiting for?

 

[Rumpole]

The Founders made it very difficult to amend the Constitution

Which leaves gun grabbers like you sucking air

Boring

 

[Donald H]

Try? Wake up.
They've already moved America to a point where SWAT teams are called if someone is seen with so much as a WATER GUN.
Walmarts have all but stopped selling ammo.
FFL's have been raided for their sales information and a National Registry Database created.
Many states now have Red Flag Laws that allow gun seizures based on anonymous "tips" by anyone.
Tell you what....TRY even getting a gun in NewYork, California or ANY Blue State at this point where they've installed a Progressive Governor.

TRY?

You literally must be kidding.
No one will do a thing and it's been proven time and time again.
All the talk you speak of otherwise is fantasy and Internet Tuff Guy Talk. Nothing more.
The VERY BEST you can possibly hope for is a FEW brave (and doomed) souls here and there to resist when they come to take them. That's it.
Denial is not going to stop them. Sorry, that's a losing strategy from the start.

Can we talk about compromising in order to save your 2nd. amendment.

From a Canadian's perspective, I can be largely unbiased on account of Canada being a country in which citizens are permitted to have guns and to use them freely in appropriate situations.
Maybe we can turn a gun related thread into something productive for a change?

 

[westwall]

Boring

Yes, you are.

 

[westwall]

Can we talk about compromising in order to save your 2nd. amendment.

From a Canadian's perspective, I can be largely unbiased on account of Canada being a country in which citizens are permitted to have guns and to use them freely in appropriate situations.
Maybe we can turn a gun related thread into something productive for a change?

No. We can't.