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

[Rumpole]

The same state and local overstep of authority continues today--and is STILL unconstitutional.

Their ignorance of the law by this wrong-headed interpretation is no excuse or reason.

Nonsense. Link it.

Like your understanding of amending the constitution, it is flawed. The only way that your proposal could be accomplished is by repealing the second and amending the constitution again. One won't happen because the second would never be accomplished. BTW, apparently you didn't read my earlier post #91 and source.

Thank you Concerned American, and your reference to the nuts and bolts of it, is noted. I'm not a politician, political scientist, and naturally, however mechanically the objective could be achieved, replace the verbiage with your more precise description, and the message of the OP will remain. But, in fact, that is what I had in mind, a new amendment that rewrites the second. I was thinking it would be an amended second amendment, but, upon reflection, I should have mentioned it would be the 28th amendment.

Trees take a long time to grow, but they won't grow until seeds are planted. One could toss a handful of seeds, and only one seed or two will take root. Today, I've only tossed out to the public sphere, one seed. My expectations are not high.

 

[Rumpole]

Amendments to the Constitution are allowed. Amendments can't be amended. Otherwise instead of passing the 21st Amendment, we could have just amended the 18th.

Ah yes, upon reflection, indeed, you are correct. My amendment would be the 28th, But that fact doesn't alter the message in the OP.

 

[Rumpole]

It’s clear that the original intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to codify a collective – not individual – right to possess a firearm pursuant to militia service and militia service alone.

And as noted, with the advent of the states’ national guard, the notion of participating in a militia became moot, there is no Federal right to posses a firearm, where the states were at liberty to recognize and codify such a right at the state level – or not.

Until Heller and McDonald.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court, and current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that the Second Amendment right is an individual right unconnected with militia service, and a Federal right.

Until that changes – through the amendment process or the judicial process where Heller and McDonald are overturned – there will be no assault weapon ban, no magazine capacity restrictions, and such state and local laws will be eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, illustrating more hypocrisy from conservatives and their inconsistent advocacy of “states’ rights.”

And that is why I am proposing a 28th amendment, to repeal and replace the second, update, a veritable 2A v2, as it were, to give states more flexibility in regulating arms. Such an amendment would nullify the Heller ruling, right? Thank you for your valuable input.

Cheers
Rumpole

 

[Mac-7]

And that is why I am proposing a 28th amendment, to repeal and replace the second, update, a veritable 2A v2, as it were, to give states more flexibility in regulating arms. Such an amendment would nullify the Heller ruling, right? Thank you for your valuable input.

Cheers
Rumpole

Are you a US citizen?

 

[Rumpole]

Because you can amend is not a compelling reason to amend. You have failed to offer a compelling reason.

Your argument is basically boo hoo there is violence. Let's restrict the God given rights of everybody because there are bad guys in the world.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter. While I understand that the mere ability to amend the Constitution does not necessitate doing so, the intention behind this proposal is to explore possible avenues for addressing the issue of gun violence while respecting individual rights.

It is true that violence exists, and there will always be those who engage in harmful behavior. However, the goal of the proposed "2A v.2" amendment (which would be, in fact, the 28th amendment, repealing and replacing the Second) is not to restrict the rights of everyone indiscriminately, but rather to strike a balance between preserving the right to bear arms and ensuring public safety. The proposal seeks to allow states and cities to develop regulations that are tailored to their specific circumstances and that reflect the values and needs of their citizens.

It is important to remember that the conversation about amending the Second Amendment is not about dismissing individual rights, but rather about exploring potential solutions that could help reduce the devastating impact of gun violence in our society. By engaging in this dialogue, we can better understand the various perspectives on this complex issue and work towards creating a safer environment for all citizens while upholding their constitutional rights.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

Are you a US citizen?

For all of 72 years, indeed

 

[Mac-7]

For all of 72 years, indeed

Ok if you say so

But there is no easy solution to gun violence that is caused entirely by liberal culture

No matter how much you handcuff honest citizens the criminals will keep doing their thing

 

[yidnar]

Yidnar, I must admit, your amusing retort and creative respelling of my name did bring a chuckle. However, I'd like to clarify that the proposal in the essay does not advocate for a gradual path towards a total banning of firearms. Instead, it aims to strike a balance between individual rights and public safety by allowing states and local jurisdictions more flexibility in regulating firearms according to their specific needs.

The 'slippery slope fallacy' you mention assumes that taking one step in a certain direction will inevitably lead to an extreme outcome, which is not the intention of the original proposal. In fact, the proposal explicitly maintains certain guarantees for gun ownership, such as single shot bolt action rifles and handguns at the state level.

By fostering a constructive dialogue and considering various perspectives, we can work towards finding solutions that respect individual liberties while also addressing the need for public safety. It's important to remember that the goal of this conversation is to explore potential solutions, rather than to advocate for extreme measures.

Cheers,
Rumpole

at least you do have a sense of humor ... but unfortunately the slippery slope phrase is based on historical facts in not all but many many events .

 

[Rumpole]

at least you do have a sense of humor ... but unfortunately the slippery slope phrase is based on historical facts in not all but many many events .

I suspect you have a path a reasoning. So, let's hear it (or see it, a the case may be), yidnar. I invite any challenge.

Let's see whatcha got.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[themirrorthief]

Yours truly and none other. Just starting the conversation -- planting a seed. That's all.

are you growing some good pot.....you been smoking a lot of it apparently

 

[Compost]

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter. While I understand that the mere ability to amend the Constitution does not necessitate doing so, the intention behind this proposal is to explore possible avenues for addressing the issue of gun violence while respecting individual rights.

It is true that violence exists, and there will always be those who engage in harmful behavior. However, the goal of the proposed "2A v.2" amendment (which would be, in fact, the 28th amendment, repealing and replacing the Second) is not to restrict the rights of everyone indiscriminately, but rather to strike a balance between preserving the right to bear arms and ensuring public safety. The proposal seeks to allow states and cities to develop regulations that are tailored to their specific circumstances and that reflect the values and needs of their citizens.

It is important to remember that the conversation about amending the Second Amendment is not about dismissing individual rights, but rather about exploring potential solutions that could help reduce the devastating impact of gun violence in our society. By engaging in this dialogue, we can better understand the various perspectives on this complex issue and work towards creating a safer environment for all citizens while upholding their constitutional rights.

Cheers,
Rumpole

You've blown your wad.

cheers

 

[LibertyKid]

As Rumpole suggests, it's not possible and it would make no difference anyway.

The issue that must be addressed is America's culture of violence, continuous wars, and killing. The many millions of guns lying around only facilitate the culture.

And that killing culture lies within the inner cities where gangs and thugs continue to kill each other over and over and over.
School shootings, as tragic as they are, are small in numbers in the data.
However, if gangs have a shooting, on school property, after school hours, guess who's quick to label that a mass shooting and a school shooting? You know the answer.

The problem is cultural, the problem is systemic. However it's not the law abiding gun owners, even those that do have an arsenal, that are the problems. It's thugs and the urban sub culture that are the majority of perpetrators. And guess what, the minute you the gov't tries to make rifles, whether they are an AR or any other type of rifle illegal, the gov't has created a black market where only the criminals will have them. I don't understand why it's hard to see the logical progression.

 

[LibertyKid]

Ok if you say so

But there is no easy solution to gun violence that is caused entirely by liberal culture

No matter how much you handcuff honest citizens the criminals will keep doing their thing

And which party is chasing the votes of the criminals that are committing the majority of shootings?

 

[LibertyKid]

It is important to remember that the conversation about amending the Second Amendment is not about dismissing individual rights, but rather about exploring potential solutions that could help reduce the devastating impact of gun violence in our society. By engaging in this dialogue, we can better understand the various perspectives on this complex issue and work towards creating a safer environment for all citizens while upholding their constitutional rights.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Over 50% percent of gun deaths are suicides. As tragic as that is, there is little to do to stop it.
The vast majority of other gun deaths are committed by criminals and the inner city gang related sub culture that exists.
The shooting we saw in Nashville, technically is very small statistically. However, the left and the liberal MSM groups the gang related violence into the same bucket as the Nashville shooting. They think that adds credence to their agenda, when in fact, if someone is logical enough to see the facts, the data proves that the actual issue in the black community that continues to commit the vast majority of crime and "Mass shootings".

It's not the 2A that's the issue. It's the urban sub-culture that continues to be supported by the leftist agendas. The problem is being too easy on criminals who have committed previous gun related crimes. If we want to start somewhere, go after the gangs, hunt down illegal arms operations and the black market.
Get illegal guns off the street. But the minute you take guns away from law abiding citizens, you create a market for criminals and an entirely new beast emerges.

Also, what about all the other deaths due to drinking and driving, tobacco and 2nd hand smoking deaths? Why aren't we doing more to stop the opioid epidemic. Those deaths out number gun related deaths, including Suicide, significantly. Why aren't we talking about making alcohol illegal, or making tobacco illegal? The laws we have today don't stop people from making bad choices. Hell have you seen the number of assholes texting and driving distracted? That's a bigger issue than gun violence.

It's all about narrative, propaganda and creating political division for one thing... Your vote.

 

[Mac-7]

And which party is chasing the votes of the criminals that are committing the majority of shootings?

Democrats

 

[Donald H]

Dipshit.....Michael moore lied in Bowling For Columbine........he lied throughout the entire movie......and idiots like you sucked it up...

When Americans stop buying black AR-15's the slaughter of children in their schools will start to fall off. There's something wrong with people who think they need a weapons of war or a lookalike copy.

Some of those gunowners are the ones who will use their AR for it's intended purpose of killing their fellow Americans.

The answer to the question is NO. There is no solution other than changing away from the culture of wars and murder with guns.

That's the part that Michael Moore didn't lie about!

 

[2aguy]

When Americans stop buying black AR-15's the slaughter of children in their schools will start to fall off. There's something wrong with people who think they need a weapons of war or a lookalike copy.

Some of those gunowners are the ones who will use their AR for it's intended purpose of killing their fellow Americans.

The answer to the question is NO. There is no solution other than changing away from the culture of wars and murder with guns.

That's the part that Michael Moore didn't lie about!

The AR-15 isn't a "weapon of war." The AR-15 is a simple, civilian and police rifle...you dumb ass...

The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

 

[Donald H]

It's not the 2A that's the issue. It's the urban sub-culture that continues to be supported by the leftist agendas.

You're finally on to something! Blaming the left is fine, as long as you're acknowledging that it is to do with 'a' culture in America that needs to be examined.

Can you acknowledge too that the adopted 'culture' is taking away your liberty?

 

[Donald H]

The AR-15 isn't a "weapon of war." The AR-15 is a simple, civilian and police rifle...you dumb ass...

The AR-15 is a copy of a weapon of war and it's black for a purpose. The point you refuse to accept is that they appeal to those who are trying to copy the military.

To narrow down the 'bad' element who buy AR-15's we could add that they will go to a range dressed in camo, and shoot at human silouette targets. Some will even carry extra military paraphenalia for appearance sake! A few will even blacken their faces!

Those are now at least the highly suspected ones who at least are wanting to use their gun on another human being.

Is it normal behaviour for a young American man to want to pretend that he is a soldier with his AR-15?

Answer: What becomes the choice of a weapon for the majority, becomes the normal.

Are AR-15's the most popular weapon in America now?

Does the sale of AR-15's coincide with the mass shootings rate?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There's something wrong with people who think they need a weapons of war or a lookalike copy.

There is something wrong with people who are brainwashed slaves/subjects of a shithole nation like Canaduh, that think that they have any wisdom at all to offer the free citizens of a nation like America as to how our nation should be run.

Canaduh and its subjects are pitiful cast-off relics of the same tyranny against which we Americans violently rebelled in order to establish our independence and sovereignty—a nation founded in cowering and groveling before the same tyrant whose ass we kicked to found ours.