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

[Donald H]

First, to compare a first world country with the vastly more complex issues of a third world country is specious reasoning.

Now then....

Naysayers and gun worshippers say 'do nothing'. they say 'more guns is the answer'.

Democrats, moderates and sensible republicans say 'do something'. They say, 'less guns is the answer, and a comprehensive approach to the problem, given that it's not a simple problem'.

No one is suggesting the solution is a panacea, but when there is crime, though it can't be stopped, it does NOT mean we don't try and stop it, which appears to be the recommendation of the pro gun worshippers, i.e., 'do nothing'. I reject the premise.

I see no compelling reason for the former, but solid reasoning for the latter, given that......

America has more gun related deaths and injury per capita than other developed (first world) nations,
and America has more guns per capita than western developed nations, and despite anemic
hollers that 'correlation is not causation', for which the correct reply is, there is causation
when the volume of statistics is so great that it overwhelmingly points to one, irrefutable inescapable conclusion,
not to mention that gun related deaths are the number one killer of children as of 2020 and that correlates to the proliferation
of guns via the gun worshipping/gun fetishing culture that is spreading like a malignant cancer by the likes of the NRA and
MAGA movements. This idea that MAGA republicans are 'pro life' is a delusion. Ban abortion, deaths of the female poor go up, proliferate guns, and more children die. As for MAGA republicans and gun worshippers, one can only conclude, they are pro death.

As Adam Winkler wrote in his book, 'Gunfight, the battle over the right to bear arms in America', wrote:

View attachment 775049


His work has frequently been cited in judicial opinions, including in Supreme Court cases pertaining to the First and Second Amendments

Suggest you keep your posts shorter than this. Attention spans are only good for a paragraph.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

Yer welcome Rumpole!

Before the Rulers Could Stab Us in the Back, They Had to Take Away Our Backbone.

The same race-traitors who gave civil rights to the uncivilized, knowing what would happen to our neighborhoods, then restricted the rights of the civilized from doing anything about it.

To make things even worse, they made us afraid to take the law back into our own hands, where all valid law originates. A society that wasn't inspired to imitate Death Wish has a death wish. The Persuaders boldly told us the way out of this but somehow got away with convincing us with "Don't Go There."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A tree will never grow unless a seed is planted.

Nothing Grows From Planting Thorns Dusted in Sand

 

[Rumpole]

Suggest you keep your posts shorter than this. Attention spans are only good for a paragraph.

Well, I've been so advised a number of times by some on this forum, but, after giving it thought, the filtering out the ADDs and mental midgets who can't handled more nuanced comments, it actually works for me. It's also the reason I chose 'Rumpole' for my handle, because idiots can't resist vulgarizing it, this tells me who the morons are and I don't have to read their comment much further to find out. In short, I don't mean to appear obstreperous, but there is some reason to my methods. If I see 35 colors in an image, I'm the type who prefers to comment on the range of color, and for those who can only perceive the three primary colors, well, my writing will filter them out. Another analogy I like to use, as I am a jazz pianist, and some folks can't hear the complex polychords I use. To them, the chords sound like white noise, but since I'm not seeking fame, I prefer to play for those who can sense the complex harmonies I use, and to those who are weaned on three chord tunes, well, the universe has plenty to offer them, just not by me. My writing is similar. I do not write for simpletons. I could have written this paragraph in one line, but, in my view, it's richer as it is, or rather, it's how I like it, personally, and I can't write for thee, only me. Like Thelonious Monk once said, 'The genius is the one most like himself'. (Not saying I'm a genius, but I love the quote).

But, thanks for the advice.

Rumpole

 

[Donald H]

Well, I've been so advised a number of times by some on this forum, but, after giving it thought, the filtering out the ADDs and mental midgets who can't handled more nuanced comments, it actually works for me.

But, thanks for the advice.

Sure, but look at 2Aguys long 'cut and paste' jobs that do nothing but spam the discussion. And so at least keep the suggestion in mind.

I think a mark is being made on their ignorant hides when the issue of 'gun control' can be defused by keeping to the real problem of violent attitudes and continuous wars.

Can you devote a bigger portion of your efforts to that, even when it has to be self-condemning of your country. It's worth it when it reaches out and touches them!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

There's no need to amend it because the right to bear arms is based on the natural right of self-defense. If any, 2A is not necessary because militias have been replaced by police and the National Guard.

Theocratic Legislative and Judicial Supremacy

It is a contradiction for gunowners to justify themselves against a hostile government by quoting a government document, the ruling class's sacred-cow Constitution. But it is that same government which turns loose and protects criminals, using that same elitist document to let those proven savages terrorize us.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The problem is the gun worshipping and gun fetishing has become something of a national pathology.

That is the problem, the veritable sickness that has to be addressed.

Only Those Who Oppose Individualism Call Self-Defense a "Fetish"

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You could do a lot more to make us “safe” by overturning the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments, and Eighth Amendments, than you ever could by attacking the Second.. Give the police/government more freedom to simply round up suspected criminals, and dispose of them, without having to bother with all that nonsense of warrants, probable cause, due process of law, and such.

What could possibly go wrong?

Starting Within America, the Third World War Must Be Fought Against the Third World

Again, the Globalist traitors in the government are using the same Constitution to protect what is, in fact, a Globalist army of criminals, whether foreign-born or native. That makes all this violence a war, and those suicidal Rules of Engagement have to be suspended until an American nationalist army wins the war against that army and its enablers.

 

[Rumpole]

Sure, but look at 2Aguys long 'cut and paste' jobs that do nothing but spam the discussion.

It's not about length, it's about quality. Surely you are not conflating his with mine, no?

And so at least keep the suggestion in mind.

I will. Brevity is appropriate at times. I do it on a case by case basis.

I think a mark is being made on their ignorant hides when the issue of 'gun control' can be defused by keeping to the real problem of violent attitudes and continuous wars.

Good point.

Can you devote a bigger portion of your efforts to that, even when it has to be self-condemning of your country. It's worth it when it reaches out and touches them!

I'm always open to constructive criticism.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[LibertyKid]

Sure, but look at 2Aguys long 'cut and paste' jobs that do nothing but spam the discussion. And so at least keep the suggestion in mind.

I think a mark is being made on their ignorant hides when the issue of 'gun control' can be defused by keeping to the real problem of violent attitudes and continuous wars.

Can you devote a bigger portion of your efforts to that, even when it has to be self-condemning of your country. It's worth it when it reaches out and touches them!

Donald, as a Canadian, can you agree that the continued wars and violent attitudes you speak of are the ones being fought in our big inner cities by gangs and repeat criminals?

 

[Donald H]

It's not about length, it's about quality. Surely you are not conflating his with mine, no?

No, I'm not. I think you're doing a pretty good job of keeping the debate alive. I gauge your efforts by the amount of irritation you cause them.

I will. Brevity is appropriate at times. I do it on a case by case basis.

Good point.

I'm always open to constructive criticism.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Cheers, Donald.

 

[miketx]

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.

Come get them. Wear proper attire.

 

[Rumpole]

Come get them. Wear proper attire.

You ought to read before you comment.

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[miketx]

You ought to read before you comment.

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Rumpole

You ought to jump off a cliff.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

Is this an admission that gun control doesn't work?...please refrain from:

rude comments, "TLDL" comments, snarky and lazy retorts, disingenuous comments, ad nauseum,

As they will not

be ignored.

just want an answer to my question

 

[whitehall]

Amend the 2nd Amendment? A generation of Americans have been indoctrinated with left wing ideology and can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and can't name a single "Founder". Go for it lefties, it's your time

 

[ralfy]

There's no need to amend it as U.S. society already did by replacing the Militia Acts with conscription, and that with the Selective Service System.

 

[BackAgain]

Someone please advise Dumpole that we don’t Amend amendments. We would have to amend the Constitution. There are ways to do it. But his “idea” is no idea at all.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

No need to provide a link as that has appeared in every left wing periodical and on every left wing news channel ad nauseum...

The acknowledgement is wrong, 2a, as the constitution makes clear, it is an inalienable right, [cannot be taken away in any constitutional manner] that is the context it is written in...which dominoes the intent that not so cleverly misrepresents the militia clause as the NG falls under the purview of the governor and not the citizens making armed resistance to a rouge government impossible...it matters not how likely/unlikely that is as the intent here is to dispel and show why the NG does not represent a citizens militia...The NRA best represents the well regulated militia of constitutional intent.

If there were one proposition put to a national vote that combined both the curtailing of 1a and 2a how would you vote?

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

Amend it or repeal it. 9 more dead today! Oh no man that is my "right" LOL.