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

[westwall]

not the point. Apparently the point eludes you, now please pester someone else.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Your mental masturbatory delusions aside, your "idea" has no chance in hell of even being heard. So go pester someone else with your fantasies.

 

[Mac-7]

There is no issue with guns. There IS an issue with progressive DA's, and judges who constantly release violent criminals back out into the world.

Donald H is a fucking canadian

There is nothing to negotiate with him

 

[Donald H]

There IS an issue with progressive DA's, and judges who constantly release violent criminals back out into the world.

That's a talking point that's worth consideration and further discussion. If that's your intend I might be persuaded.

 

[westwall]

That's a talking point that's worth consideration and further discussion. If that's your intend I might be persuaded.

It isn't a talking point. It is THE point.

 

[Mac-7]

It isn't a talking point. It is THE point.

Beautiful

Donald H the canadian who has no vote over our laws MIGHT be persuaded to let us keep our guns if…

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

From a Canadiaan'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?

I've read Canada's gun laws. Civilians are allowed a very limited list of guns AND ONLY AT THEIR GOVERNMERNT'S PLEASURE. If you want to own a gun you have to convince the government that you have a reason acceptable TO THE GOVERNMENT and get permission which can be revoked at any time for any reason. As a Canadian, you don't have rights you have PRIVLEDGES that the government can revoke at will.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That's a talking point that's worth consideration and further discussion. If that's your intend I might be persuaded.

WE don't need to persuade you of anything. You have no say in our affairs and I wish you would just relocate to a Canadian Forum on this subject, if, of course, your government allows them to exist.

 

[Oldestyle]

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.

My question for you is this, Rumpole...
If in fact you really want to address gun violence with gun control laws...would you like to take a crack at explaining why the cities in the US with some of the strictest gun control laws already in place, have the biggest problems with gun violence?
When you address that...
Then kindly explain why it is that most mass shooters choose "gun free" zones in which to carry out their killing sprees?
One would think that if you REALLY cared about a safer society that you'd want solutions that actually MAKE people safer like hardened school zones! Just saying...

 

[Oldestyle]

The Wild west had stricter gun control laws than we have today.

NRA Stick this where the sun don't shine!!!

In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office.

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg
-

So did the Clantons obey that law? Obviously not. What do you think would have happened if Dodge City was run by liberals? The Police would have been defunded so probably Wyatt Earp wouldn't have been able to afford to deputize his brothers and Doc Holliday. Criminals wouldn't be put in jail but released on no cash bail so the bad guys would be back on the street in a matter of hours. The level of violence in Dodge City would have escalated to a point where Wyatt Earp would have been reluctant to leave his office to do Police work and the good townspeople would have cowered in their homes! You know...kind of the way things are now in San Francisco, Chicago and New York?

 

[Donald H]

WE don't need to persuade you of anything. You have no say in our affairs and I wish you would just relocate to a Canadian Forum on this subject, if, of course, your government allows them to exist.

I have no say in American affairs but I have opinions to express. If my opinions run counter too yours then you're free to state your case.
As I will mine!

Your tactic, as with similar tactics of others are childish and completely ineffective.

 

[Donald H]

So did the Clantons obey that law? Obviously not. What do you think would have happened if Dodge City was run by liberals? The Police would have been defunded so probably Wyatt Earp wouldn't have been able to afford to deputize his brothers and Doc Holliday. Criminals wouldn't be put in jail but released on no cash bail so the bad guys would be back on the street in a matter of hours. The level of violence in Dodge City would have escalated to a point where Wyatt Earp would have been reluctant to leave his office to do Police work and the good townspeople would have cowered in their homes! You know...kind of the way things are now in San Francisco, Chicago and New York?

All that was the reason why Roy Rodgers, Dale Evans, Gene Autry, Lone Ranger, and Hopalong were created to guard against.

 

[Donald H]

My question for you is this, Rumpole...
If in fact you really want to address gun violence with gun control laws...would you like to take a crack at explaining why the cities in the US with some of the strictest gun control laws already in place, have the biggest problems with gun violence?

The gun violence came first, and then the gun control laws came as an effort to stop or contain it.

Yer welcome Rumpole!

 

[Oldestyle]

The gun violence came first, and then the gun control laws came as an effort to stop or contain it.

Yer welcome Rumpole!

And yet the gun violence has gotten WORSE since the gun control laws were passed? So why does it make sense to pass MORE gun control laws?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

And yet the gun violence has gotten WORSE since the gun control laws were passed? So why does it make sense to pass MORE gun control laws?

To disarm the citizenry. That way, the government can control us easier.

 

[Rumpole]

My question for you is this, Rumpole...
If in fact you really want to address gun violence with gun control laws...would you like to take a crack at explaining why the cities in the US with some of the strictest gun control laws already in place, have the biggest problems with gun violence?

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

When you address that...
Then kindly explain why it is that most mass shooters choose "gun free" zones in which to carry out their killing sprees?

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

One would think that if you REALLY cared about a safer society that you'd want solutions that actually MAKE people safer like hardened school zones! Just saying...

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

 

[Rumpole]

Your mental masturbatory delusions aside, your "idea" has no chance in hell of even being heard. So go pester someone else with your fantasies.

A tree will never grow unless a seed is planted. The point is, your point is not a valid point, and most certainly doesn't refute the premise offered in the OP. IN fact, thus far, you've blown a lot of hot air in a feeble attempt to puff yourself up and have done nothing to contribute nor move the debate offered in the OP forward

In every group, and more often than not, there are nattering nabobs of negativism, that nasty little tribe of which you clearly are a member.

 

[2aguy]

So did the Clantons obey that law? Obviously not. What do you think would have happened if Dodge City was run by liberals? The Police would have been defunded so probably Wyatt Earp wouldn't have been able to afford to deputize his brothers and Doc Holliday. Criminals wouldn't be put in jail but released on no cash bail so the bad guys would be back on the street in a matter of hours. The level of violence in Dodge City would have escalated to a point where Wyatt Earp would have been reluctant to leave his office to do Police work and the good townspeople would have cowered in their homes! You know...kind of the way things are now in San Francisco, Chicago and New York?

And remember, the Cowboys and Doc Holiday ignored the law.........the Cowboys, using guns, murdered on Earp, and maimed another..........

 

[2aguy]

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.

Then you have to explain why it is that the states and cities with the lax gun laws have less gun crime? Considering the criminals don't have to cross state lines and the guns are just as available to them......
The Chicago Gun Myth | National Review

Lightfoot claims that 60 percent of the guns used in Chicago murders are bought from out of state.

I assume she is relying on 2017’s suspect “gun trace report,” which looked at guns confiscated in criminal acts from 2013 and 2016. Even if we trusted the city’s data, most guns used in Illinois crimes are bought in-state.

If gun laws in Illinois — which earns a grade of “A-“ from the pro-gun-control Gifford Law Center, tied for second highest in the country after New Jersey — are more effective than gun laws in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Indiana, why is it that FFL dealers in suburban Cook County are the origin point for a third of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, and home to “seven of the top ten source dealers”?

According to the trace study, 11.2 percent of all crime guns recovered in Chicago could be tracked to just two gun shops.


The only reason, it seems, criminals take the drive to Indiana is because local gun shops are tapped out. There is a tremendous demand for weapons in Chicago. That’s not Mississippi’s fault. And Lightfoot’s contention only proves that criminals in her city can get their hands on guns rather easily, while most law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.


Lightfoot may also be surprised to learn that California borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.

Yet no big city in California has quite the murder and criminality of Chicago.


New York borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Yet NYC’s murder rate is only fraction of Chicago’s. Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago.

Please, explain.

This brings me to my favorite part.

The gun-grabbers will argue: Guns are shipped into these cities from places without tough gun control laws!

Okay, then shouldn’t these places where all the guns supposedly originate from be even more violent?

FACT: Gun control is a total failure at stopping gun crime.
FACT: Gun control encourages violent crime and criminals.
Nolte: If Gun Control Worked, Democrat-Run Cities Wouldn't Be War Zones

 

[2aguy]

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

You pulled that one out of your ass......

Mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2023, by state​

Published by Statista Research Department, Mar 28, 2023
As of March 2023, California had the most mass shootings in the United States, with 25 total shootings since 1982. The source defines a mass shooting as a shooting where three or more people were killed.

Mass shootings in the U.S. by state 1982-2023 | Statista

As of December 2023, California had the most mass shootings in the United States, with 26 total shootings since 1982.

www.statista.com

Texas....12

So....now two of your points have been shown to be pulled out of your rear end.......and you expect us to take you seriously?

 

[2aguy]

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.
And that reply also comes right out of your behind....is there anything you just don't make up on the fly?
We have since updated our information up through May 30, 2018.

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950​

Data on cases

An Excel spreadsheet that lists all the mass public shootings from 1998 through April 30, 2018is available here: Case by case discussion of which cases have been in gun-free zones. UPDATED: Broader and updated information on these shootings from 1998 to June 2019 is available here.

The report by Bill Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott on gun-free zones that covers earlier years from 1977 to 1999 is available here (the raw data used in this study is available in a STATA file, though the sums by state and year are available here). We used the cases identified by the New York Times that are discussed in Lott and Landes for years prior to 1977 (series is discussed here, though the web version doesn’t have the chart that lists out each case). A case by case discussion on the New York Times cases can be found at the bottom of this page.

One moment, please...