Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not federal, but municipalities often regulated firearms.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.
Let's set aside our differences so we can tackle the issues on guns.Boring
You know that is going to destroy any chance of a discussion.to the frothing-at-the-mouth radicals they are today.
Except finally Scalia got tired of the Commie states doing whatever infringing they wanted to do and that is what led to Heller, and then McDonald as a followup. Then Thomas had enough and that led to Bruen, which really was a kick in the ass of the states and locals that were infringing upon the Constitutional right.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.
I doubt you will get the votes in Congress nor will you get the required number of states to approve it. It’s a dead proposal.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 know. That is what I am saying. The decision to regulate was never an issue for the first 143 years. It was to the states and localities to DoD pos if they chose to.Not federal, but municipalities often regulated firearms.
It's not that they didn't have an interest, the second amendment never became the thing it is until the NRA morphed from a group of gentleman hunters of game, where shooting was a pastime and gentle advocacy, to the frothing-at-the-mouth radicals they are today.
Your idea is going nowhereBoring
We Will Live in Fear Until the Lawmakers Live in FearWhat are you waiting for?
That your proposal is dead on arrival is the pointnot the point. Apparently the point eludes you, now please pester someone else.
Cheers,
Rumpole
The Best Defense Is a Good OffenseLet's set aside our differences so we can tackle the issues on guns.
I know. That is what I am saying. The decision to regulate was never an issue for the first 143 years. It was to the states and localities to DoD pos if they chose to.
No, the 2nd did not become an issue because of the NRA. The NRA was foundEd in 1871 as a non partisan organization promoting marksmanship. They pretty much stayed that way their first 100 years. They actually supported the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968.
The lobbying arm was not created until 1975 by newer leadership that was not nappy with provisions of the 1968 GCA and other proposals for gun control.
In summary it was government regulations and proposals that made the 2nd an issue. The NRA lobbying are was simply a reaction to it.
Mac-7, You do realize that not all seedling sprouts get noticed until they take root and grow a little, but someone has to plant the seed.That your proposal is dead on arrival is the point
One man's fantasy is another's hope for a better future. Spinning as an American pastime, but not a strong counter argument.You are indulging a fantasy that isnt helping anything
But that IS what has driven my premise. A means by which to grant states more freedom to regulate arms, so that they can better protect children, without interference from the gun lobby. I recall a time when the NRA was a marksmanship group, mostly quiet advocates, whose interest was hunting, sportsmanship, and the like. Somewhere down the line they morphed into a rather radical group, against any and all sensible attempts to help save the lives of children via sensible gun control. After all, death by gun causes more injury and death to children than any other.Why not devote your energy to protecting children the way mayors and judges are protected?
Mayors and judges have armed police protection along with metal detectors, fences and armored doorsBut that IS what has driven my premise.
True, but when, in the kitchen, sometimes one is affected by the heat.You know that is going to destroy any chance of a discussion.
Let's set aside our differences so we can tackle the issues on guns.
