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

[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.

I certainly hope you're the first casualty of you communist war you want.

 

[miketx]

The issue is relatively similar for the licensing and regulation of automobiles

There's no right to keep and bear automobiles you filthy liar.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

An amendment to 2A renders your point moot. Amendments are allowed per the US Constitution.

Not at all, points raised which you have not adequately addressed, let alone refuted.

There is no Constitution article which allows amending an amendment. See the 18th and 21st Amendments regarding prohibition.

 

[Rumpole]

I was thinking of the best way to respond to your stupidity.

The best I can come up with that adequately addresses your confusion about Liberty in this country is "fuck you Moon Bat".

If you don't like the Bill of Rights then move to another country.

If you don't like the fact that the US has a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms then move to a country where it is a privileged handed out by deranged government bureaucrats.

May I suggest Canada? That way you won't have to learn a foreign language unless you move to Montreal.

Flash,
I appreciate your passion for the topic and understand that the issue of gun rights can evoke strong emotions. However, I believe that we can engage in a respectful and constructive conversation about the matter without resorting to name-calling or offensive language.

It's important to recognize that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are living documents, which have been amended and reinterpreted throughout the history of the United States. As such, discussing potential changes to the Second Amendment does not inherently imply a dislike for the Bill of Rights or the country. Instead, it can be seen as an ongoing effort to adapt to evolving societal needs and ensure the well-being of all citizens.

Moreover, the proposal mentioned earlier does not advocate for banning guns outright, but rather emphasizes the need for a more nuanced approach, allowing states and cities to regulate firearms as they see fit while still maintaining certain guarantees for gun ownership.

I understand that you may not agree with these ideas, and that's perfectly okay. We can have different opinions on this issue, but it's essential to engage in a respectful and open-minded dialogue to find common ground and work towards solutions that benefit everyone.

As for the suggestion to move to another country, it's worth noting that one of the great things about living in a democratic society is having the freedom to express diverse opinions and participate in conversations about how to improve our nation. Engaging in these discussions is an important part of being a responsible citizen and does not necessarily mean that one should leave the country if they have different ideas about how to address certain issues.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I hope we can continue this conversation in a respectful manner.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[miketx]

An amendment to 2A renders your point moot. Amendments are allowed per the US Constitution.

Not at all, points raised which you have not adequately addressed, let alone refuted.

Damn you are a lying pos.

 

[Flash]

Flame Bait!!!!

LOL! The idiot spent a lot of time writting his flame bait, didn't he? Maybe he is not really a "he" but an "It".

 

[miketx]

Flash,
I appreciate your passion for the topic and understand that the issue of gun rights can evoke strong emotions. However, I believe that we can engage in a respectful and constructive conversation about the matter without resorting to name-calling or offensive language.

It's important to recognize that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are living documents, which have been amended and reinterpreted throughout the history of the United States. As such, discussing potential changes to the Second Amendment does not inherently imply a dislike for the Bill of Rights or the country. Instead, it can be seen as an ongoing effort to adapt to evolving societal needs and ensure the well-being of all citizens.

Moreover, the proposal mentioned earlier does not advocate for banning guns outright, but rather emphasizes the need for a more nuanced approach, allowing states and cities to regulate firearms as they see fit while still maintaining certain guarantees for gun ownership.

I understand that you may not agree with these ideas, and that's perfectly okay. We can have different opinions on this issue, but it's essential to engage in a respectful and open-minded dialogue to find common ground and work towards solutions that benefit everyone.

As for the suggestion to move to another country, it's worth noting that one of the great things about living in a democratic society is having the freedom to express diverse opinions and participate in conversations about how to improve our nation. Engaging in these discussions is an important part of being a responsible citizen and does not necessarily mean that one should leave the country if they have different ideas about how to address certain issues.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I hope we can continue this conversation in a respectful manner.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Np liar, the issue of gun rights does nothing. What causes problems is when you lying communist bastards try to take that right. Do it. see what happens bastard.

 

[miketx]

LOL! The idiot spent a lot of time writting his flame bait, didn't he? Maybe he is not really a "he" but an "It".

As a trans dick chopper I'm sure you know.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The issue is relatively similar for the licensing and regulation of automobiles, noting that we cannot merely license the 'incompetent', because the only way to find who is incompetent is to test each and every applicant. Now, with mentally ill, there are data bases, but not all mentally ill are accounted for, until it's too late. Moreover, the amendment recommended won't prevent a state like FLA to enact it's (in my opinion) insane policy of permitless conceal and carry, but it allows states that do want stricter regulations, to allow them to do it--the amendment I propose grants states more freedom to regulate as they see fit. If you are unhappy with California, you are free to vote for officials who think as you do, or move to Florida, that sort of thing.

If states can do that and you allow handguns, how will that stop school shootings when the vast majority and the worst involved handguns instead of rifles?

 

[marvin martian]

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.

LOL! The cities with the most restrictive gun laws (virtually all run by DemoKKKrats) have the highest rates of violent gun crime. And that's not an accident, it's intentional.

 

[Rumpole]

There's no right to keep and bear automobiles you filthy liar.

Thank you for your input, MikeTX. I understand that the comparison between firearms and automobiles may not be perfect, but the intention was not to deceive or spread misinformation. Rather, the aim was to explore the idea of finding a balance between individual rights and public safety, using automobiles as an example of a regulated yet widely accessible item.

It's important to acknowledge that firearms and automobiles serve different purposes and are regulated differently under the law. The Second Amendment specifically addresses the right to keep and bear arms, while there is no constitutional right to own or operate an automobile.

That being said, the point I was trying to make is that it might be possible to strike a balance between preserving individual rights to gun ownership and implementing reasonable regulations to promote public safety. This is a complex and challenging issue, and there are many different opinions on how to best approach it.

I apologize if my previous response seemed misleading or offensive in any way, and I appreciate your engagement in this conversation. Let's continue to discuss this topic in a polite and respectful manner, as it's through such discussions that we can better understand one another's perspectives and work towards potential solutions.

 

[Mac-7]

Flash,
I appreciate your passion for the topic and understand that the issue of gun rights can evoke strong emotions. However, I believe that we can engage in a respectful and constructive conversation about the matter without resorting to name-calling or offensive language.

It's important to recognize that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are living documents, which have been amended and reinterpreted throughout the history of the United States. As such, discussing potential changes to the Second Amendment does not inherently imply a dislike for the Bill of Rights or the country. Instead, it can be seen as an ongoing effort to adapt to evolving societal needs and ensure the well-being of all citizens.

Moreover, the proposal mentioned earlier does not advocate for banning guns outright, but rather emphasizes the need for a more nuanced approach, allowing states and cities to regulate firearms as they see fit while still maintaining certain guarantees for gun ownership.

I understand that you may not agree with these ideas, and that's perfectly okay. We can have different opinions on this issue, but it's essential to engage in a respectful and open-minded dialogue to find common ground and work towards solutions that benefit everyone.

As for the suggestion to move to another country, it's worth noting that one of the great things about living in a democratic society is having the freedom to express diverse opinions and participate in conversations about how to improve our nation. Engaging in these discussions is an important part of being a responsible citizen and does not necessarily mean that one should leave the country if they have different ideas about how to address certain issues.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I hope we can continue this conversation in a respectful manner.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Just admit that you want to take everyone’s guns and we can move on

 

[Rumpole]

If states can do that and you allow handguns, how will that stop school shootings when the vast majority and the worst involved handguns instead of rifles?

Thank you for your thoughtful question, Admiral Rockwell Tory. It is indeed a valid concern that the proposal, as stated, may not directly address the issue of school shootings, particularly when handguns are involved. The complexity of the issue requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond just regulating firearms.

One aspect to consider is that the proposal grants cities the right to ban handguns, allowing for localized solutions tailored to specific circumstances. This flexibility recognizes the unique challenges faced by urban areas, where gun violence may be more prevalent.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the proposal is not meant to be a comprehensive solution to the problem of school shootings. It aims to strike a balance between individual rights and public safety while acknowledging the diverse needs and values of different communities. The proposed amendment serves as a starting point for further discussion, rather than a definitive solution.

Addressing school shootings effectively will likely require a combination of measures, such as enhanced background checks, mental health support, and increased school security, among others. It is essential to engage in a wide-ranging dialogue involving multiple stakeholders – including educators, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and communities – to identify and implement the most effective strategies for preventing these tragic events.

In conclusion, while the proposal may not provide a direct answer to stopping school shootings involving handguns, it offers a framework for further discussions and encourages a more nuanced approach to firearm regulations. By engaging in constructive dialogue and considering a range of strategies, we can work towards finding solutions that balance individual rights and public safety, ultimately reducing the frequency and severity of school shootings.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Tl;dr.

If our hack pal, Rump, had the slightest ability to be concise, his musings might have some actual value.

But his need to be verbose isn’t something he can control.

 

[Flash]

Flash,
I appreciate your passion for the topic and understand that the issue of gun rights can evoke strong emotions. However, I believe that we can engage in a respectful and constructive conversation about the matter without resorting to name-calling or offensive language.

It's important to recognize that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are living documents, which have been amended and reinterpreted throughout the history of the United States. As such, discussing potential changes to the Second Amendment does not inherently imply a dislike for the Bill of Rights or the country. Instead, it can be seen as an ongoing effort to adapt to evolving societal needs and ensure the well-being of all citizens.

Moreover, the proposal mentioned earlier does not advocate for banning guns outright, but rather emphasizes the need for a more nuanced approach, allowing states and cities to regulate firearms as they see fit while still maintaining certain guarantees for gun ownership.

I understand that you may not agree with these ideas, and that's perfectly okay. We can have different opinions on this issue, but it's essential to engage in a respectful and open-minded dialogue to find common ground and work towards solutions that benefit everyone.

As for the suggestion to move to another country, it's worth noting that one of the great things about living in a democratic society is having the freedom to express diverse opinions and participate in conversations about how to improve our nation. Engaging in these discussions is an important part of being a responsible citizen and does not necessarily mean that one should leave the country if they have different ideas about how to address certain issues.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I hope we can continue this conversation in a respectful manner.

Cheers,
Rumpole

I am sorry Moon Bat but I cannot respect anybody that thinks it is Jim Dandy to do away with the most important admendment in the Bill of Rights. The one that makes all the others possible.

It is the cornerstone of our Republic that protects Liberty and I have no respect for anyone that is so ignorant of the Constitution as to not know that.

You ignorant and confused Moon Bats don't know any more about the Constitution as you know about Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.

It is not about public safety. You Moon Bats allow the Democrat ghetto Negro voting block to get away with committing the most violent gun crimes in the nation so you don't give a shit about safety. You don't enforce the existing laws so don't claim we need new laws.

 

[Rumpole]

Just admit that you want to take everyone’s guns and we can move on

Mac-7. I appreciate your feedback, but know that I take everyone's comments at face value. I hope and ask that you return the favor. Thank you for your input on this most controversial topic, and perhaps, some day, we can all find a solution that balances public safety with individual liberty and rights which best serves the needs of a civilized, modern, and enlightened society.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Batcat]

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.

In Florida DeSantis just signed legislation allowing a citizen to legally carry a concealed firearm without a license. Two and a half million Floridians already have concealed weapons permits. People who carry a concealed firearm RARELY IF EVER carry a rifle or shotgun. They carry handguns.

MSN

www.msn.com

Almost everybody I know has a handgun. Your idea of allowing cities to ban handguns woulld not be popular here in Florida.

I favor keeping gun legislation at the state level. New York State can ban all civilian ownership of firearms if it wants and gun owners can move to the Free State of Florida that’s so free we don’t even have an income tax for corrupt politicians to abuse.

 

[Mac-7]

Mac-7. I appreciate your feedback, but know that I take everyone's comments at face value. I hope and ask that you return the favor. Thank you for your input on this most controversial topic, and perhaps, some day, we can all find a solution that balances public safety with individual liberty and rights which best serves the needs of a civilized, modern, and enlightened society.

Cheers,
Rumpole

I can prove my statement to everyone except you

Your desire to gut the 2nd is motivated by gun violence - yes or no?

 

[Rumpole]

I am sorry Moon Bat but I cannot respect anybody that thinks it is Jim Dandy to do away with the most important admendment in the Bill of Rights. The one that makes all the others possible.

It is the cornerstone of our Republic that protects Liberty and I have no respect for anyone that is so ignorant of the Constitution as to not know that.

You ignorant and confused Moon Bats don't know any more about the Constitution as you know about Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.

It is not about public safety. You Moon Bats allow the Democrat ghetto Negro voting block to get away with committing the most violent gun crimes in the nation so you don't give a shit about safety. You don't enforce the existing laws so don't claim we need new laws.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Flash. I understand that you have strong feelings about the Second Amendment and its importance in protecting liberty. While I respect your perspective, it's essential to remember that the Constitution is a living document, which has been amended and reinterpreted throughout the history of the United States to address evolving societal needs.

It's important to emphasize that the proposal discussed earlier does not advocate for abolishing the Second Amendment. Rather, it suggests amending it in a way that allows for a more nuanced approach to firearm regulation, while still maintaining guarantees for gun ownership. The goal is to engage in a constructive conversation about finding a balance between individual rights and public safety, without compromising the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

As for your concerns about crime and enforcement, it's worth noting that public safety is a multifaceted issue that requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including law enforcement, legislators, and communities. Addressing crime effectively involves not only enforcing existing laws but also exploring additional strategies and regulations that may help reduce violence.

I encourage us to continue engaging in a respectful dialogue that fosters understanding and respect for differing opinions. By doing so, we can work towards finding common ground and potential solutions that benefit everyone.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[martybegan]

In Florida DeSantis just signed legislation allowing a citizen to legally carry a concealed firearm without a license. Two and a half million Floridians already have concealed weapons permits. People who carry a concealed firearm RARELY IF EVER carry a rifle or shotgun. They carry handguns.

MSN

www.msn.com

Almost everybody I know has a handgun. Your idea of allowing cities to ban handguns woulld not be popular here in Florida.

I favor keeping gun legislation at the state level. New York State can ban all civilian ownership of firearms if it wants and gun owners can move to the Free State of Florida that’s so free we don’t even have an income tax for corrupt politicians to abuse.

As a New Yorker I disagree, a federal right is a federal right.