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

[Rumpole]

What is the wording of your proposed amendment?

I've outlined my general idea. But, to craft the first draft of a bill requires expert research, input by experts, and the like, and, as such, it's above my paygrade. I'll I can do is what I suggested, in the OP, get the concept introduced into the public space.

 

[Rumpole]

Had to take you off ignore,

Thank you, M14 Shooter. Now then. I stated in the post you accused me of dishonesty, the reply which you ignored, that there can be nothing more honest than my asking you to quote me, in order for you to specifically substantiate your claim/allegation, etc., and thus give me the honest opportunity to respond to your accusations. That, M14 shooter, you dishonestly deprived me of that opportunity. Moreover, your accusation was an assumption which you prevented me from defending myself. That's disingenuous.

just so I could say:
This nonsense - again?
You didn't get beaten enough when your alter-ego tried this on that other board?

On this board, I've modified my position. Moreover, my entire approach is different, on this board.
That's why you can't use what was posted on the other board.
Please confine your response to posts on this board. That is fair and reasonable.

- Unnecessary
- Ineffective
- Never happen
Thus
Useless suggestion
/ thread

Your issues, concerns, and points addressed in the OP.

Cheers,
Rumpole,

 

[Seymour Flops]

I've outlined my general idea. But, to craft the first draft of a bill requires expert research, input by experts, and the like, and, as such, it's above my paygrade. I'll I can do is what I suggested, in the OP, get the concept introduced into the public space.

You u understand the second amendment cannot be simply edited?

To implement your idea - whatever it may be - you would first have to repeal the 2nd.

Which I'm guesdingvis your real aim. All the 2nd says is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In what ways do you propose inringing it?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

All Canada should immediately ban gun ownership. That, of course, includes their Mounties. (Defund Canadian police!)
Oh, and also their armed forces. Obviously no citizen of Canuckistan can be trusted with guns.
Make Canada a gun free zone.

Horses, as well.

 

[BackAgain]

Horses, as well.

View attachment 773484View attachment 773483

Ok. No more assault horses allowed in Canada.

 

[Concerned American]

topic of amending the 2nd. amendment.

Already addressed duck. You cannot amend and amendment. If you were and American with a stake in the discussion you might have known that, but it is doubtful.

I think it totally ignores the 'culture'

Maybe you should follow your own advice and stick to the topic even if it is moot, duck.

It might be said to increase the number of shootings?

Consistency, duck. This ^^ contradicts your immediately prior statement--

I've tried to offer a possible explanation for the problem in America, but it's being totally rejected.

Because it is a totally asinine assertion based on your own biases. BTW, pointing out your ignorance cannot be construed as anger by normal thinking people.

 

[LibertyKid]

Fwiw, I agree. No ban can ever be effective.

It might be said to increase the number of shootings?

Americans big cities and shooting are synonymous.
That's true of big cities in all countries, but of course to a much lesser degree.
I've tried to offer a possible explanation for the problem in America, but it's being totally rejected.

The only explanation I am understanding from you is:
It's the people that play dress up with guns and military gear, camo, paint their faces, go to shooting ranges, are the culture that we need to be concerned with. These people are creating some type of war culture that is contributing to "gun violence".

Is this correct?
If Yes, then can you provide data to back up you opinion. And as I have stated, you're doing nothing more than stereotyping and conjecture which I believe you ignored.

And my offer have done nothing but increase the level of anger in people like you Liberty.

I'm not angry. Proof is in the data. Not emotional hyperbole, speculation and conjecture.
What is frustrating is there are two sides: One side says "We must ban Assaualt Rifles" after a shooting. They go through mental gymnastics to try and explain how the 2A doesn't mean what it means. Instead of using empirical data they resort to emotional head hunting and mob rules tactics that create emotional movements that are intellectually dishonest. The other side presents data that says:

• Most mass shootings aren't done by ARs
• Most mass shootings are done by hand guns
• Most mass shootings are done by criminals and gangbangers, many who have previous convictions, and aren't allowed to own a fire arm
• Politicians and the MSM ignore this factual data
• The 2A means exactly what it says: The people should armed to defend themselves against foreign and domestic tyranny which has been upheld.
• Mass shootings aren't the result the 2A

How does the left respond, "But there are people that wear camo when they go to the range"... Like WTF?? The left completely ignores the data and the sub culture that is ACTUALLY committing the crimes. In the meantime, someone like you, points fingers as gun enthusiasts who wear camo as a people of interest.

What is producing the background anger? IN some twisted way of thinking, can the anger be shot with a gun?

I'm not even sure what you're asking. The left are the angry ones because they resort to emotional gaslighting and rhetoric to stir up the angry masses.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Gun control only works for those who will obey the laws...law abiding citizens....so any gun control will completely fail at disarming criminals and mass shooters.

Gun control works when the local population supports this law. Failure to support the law only leads to more unjustified killing of innocent people.

The right to bear arms was only intended to allow guns for a militia to gather and protect its citizens.

Even if this law only saves one life, it is worth it.!!!!!!​

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.
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.
-

 

[AZrailwhale]

Watchingfromafar, thank you for your insightful and informative comment. It's fascinating to learn about the history of gun control in the Wild West and how it differed from what many people may imagine today. Your research highlights how even during those times, there was a recognition of the importance of striking a balance between individual rights to bear arms and maintaining public safety.

The examples you provided, such as Tombstone and Dodge City, demonstrate that there has always been a willingness to regulate firearms at a local level, adapting to the specific needs and circumstances of each community. This historical context supports the idea of allowing states and local jurisdictions more flexibility in regulating firearms, as proposed in the OP.

Your contribution to this discussion not only sheds light on an often-overlooked aspect of gun control history but also reinforces the importance of engaging in a well-informed and open-minded dialogue. By understanding the past and considering various perspectives, we can better navigate the complexities of the issue and work towards finding a solution that balances individual liberties with public safety.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Dodge City and Tombstone regulated weapons belonging to VISITORS, not residents. That’s a minor fact that people like you disregard.

 

[2aguy]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.
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.
-

It wasnt the first time if you actially read Heller......scalia goes theough the entire history of bearing arms from England, the colonial period and beyond...

and you have been instructed in the old West and how you are again wrong on what you believe...

 

[westwall]

Ummm, no. Your premise is nothing but a wordy fallacy.

He is a master of mental masturbation, isn't he...

 

[badbob85037]

Not really concerned about it. Getting 2/3s of congress or 38 states to agree to it won't happen. Not any time soon,

 

[Rumpole]

Dodge City and Tombstone regulated weapons belonging to VISITORS, not residents. That’s a minor fact that people like you disregard.

Well, AZrailwhale, thanks for the nitpick. I'm going to research this, and get back to you, my gut feeling is that there is more to the story than that, but, I digress.

Okay, here's what I found:

The famous photo referred to banning firearms did not specify 'visitors', photo in the header of the URL.

Letter From Wild West — April 2021

Amid a surge of violence in Wild West towns, officials told the law-abiding to leave their guns at home

www.historynet.com

Tombstone ordinance 1881. "This provision does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city who with good faith and within reasonable time dispense with their deadly weapons." So, it appears that the visitors, not the residents, are excepted, within reasonable time limits.

Tombstone, Ariz., Ordinance 9 (Apr. 19, 1881) | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

 

[Rumpole]

He is a master of mental masturbation, isn't he...

May you go in peace in your blissful ignorance, the wonderment of intellectual prowess you shall never realize, and that is sad.

The spectrum has some 16 million colors, and it's as if you can only see the pigments of red, yellow, and blue. If you can't see the wonderful nuance of ochre, cadmium, burnt umber, sienna and thalo green/blue, etc., etc., etc., what palette of joy can ever come to you, intellectually?

Does the above metaphor elude you?

 

[2aguy]

Well, AZrailwhale, thanks for the nitpick. I'm going to research this, and get back to you, my gut feeling is that there is more to the story than that, but, I digress.

Okay, here's what I found:

The famous photo referred to banning firearms did not specify 'visitors', photo in the header of the URL.

Letter From Wild West — April 2021

Amid a surge of violence in Wild West towns, officials told the law-abiding to leave their guns at home

www.historynet.com

Tombstone ordinance 1881. "This provision does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city who with good faith and within reasonable time dispense with their deadly weapons." So, it appears that the visitors, not the residents, are excepted, within reasonable time limits.

Tombstone, Ariz., Ordinance 9 (Apr. 19, 1881) | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Do you understand that gun control failed in Tombstone?

The Cowboy gang and Doc Holiday simply ignored the law......and the Cowboys murdered one Earp and maimed another?

The West....

The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

Second, the idea that “Gun control laws were ubiquitous” in the 19th century is the work of politically motivated historians who cobble together every minor local restriction they can find in an attempt to create the impression that gun control was the norm. If this were true, Kristof wouldn’t need to jump to 1879 to offer his first specific case.

Visitors to Wichita, Kan., had to check their revolvers at police headquarters. As for Dodge City, a symbol of the Wild West, a photo shows a sign on main street in 1879 warning: “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.”


This talking point has been trotted out for years because it’s the closest thing anyone can find to resemble gun control in the Old West — a picture. But we don’t even know how rigidly the law was enforced, for how long, or if ever. We certainly don’t know that the guns were dropped off at “police headquarters.”

Dodge City-type ordinances—and those of some other towns—typically applied to the areas north of the “deadline,” which was the railroad tracks and a kind of red-light district. By 1879, Dodge City had nearly 20 businesses licensed to sell liquor and many whorehouses teeming with intoxicated young men. It was reasonable that these businesses wouldn’t want armed men with revolvers packed into their establishments.
However, the men voluntarily abandoned their weapons in exchange for entertainment and drink—just as they do today when entering establishments that prohibit the carrying of firearms. Those weapons were handed back to them when they were done. Not in their wildest imaginations would they have entertained the notion of asking the government for permission—getting a license or undergoing a background check—to own a firearm.

In the rest of the city, as with almost every city in the West, guns were allowed, and people walked around with them freely and openly. They bought them freely and openly. Even children could buy them. A man could buy a Colt or Remington or Winchester, and he could buy as many as he liked without anyone taking notice.


The fact is that in the 19th century there were no statewide or territory-wide gun control laws for citizens, and certainly no federal laws. Nor was there a single case challenging the idea of the individual right of gun ownership. Guns were romanticized in the literature and art, and the era’s greatest engineers designed and sold them. All the while, American leaders continued to praise the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny.

Those who praised this right, incidentally, include numerous post-Civil War civil rights activists, who offered particularly powerful arguments for the importance of the Second Amendment. Most gun-control regulations that did exist, after all, were used for subjugating blacks and Indians.
=================
Most of the gun control laws in the Old West, if they existed at all, had nothing to do with confiscation or restrictions on gun type. They had more to do with gun use by restricting and prohibiting firing pistols in city streets. And, while few opponents of gun control today would object to limitations on discharging firearms in a busy intersection, gun control laws of this extent were largely unheard of in most American cities. In fact, they were even unusual in the Old West, and using the gun control ordinance from Tombstone as an example, they were proven ineffective.
-----

There were other frontier towns with gun control restrictions similar to Tombstone. Most made it unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person any deadly weapon within the limits of said city, without first obtaining a permit in writing. But, in those towns, as in Tombstone, in the closest equivalents to a “gun-free zone” in the 19th century, such gun control measures did little to stem gun violence, and likely provoked the infamous kerfuffle at the O.K. Corral.
----

Lots of guns, not a lot of crime​

Mass violence, like what took place at the O.K. Corral, was actually infrequent. Moreover, the Old West reputation for lawlessness is unwarranted, despite, at times, an elevated number of homicides.

Crime such as rape and robberies occurred at a much lower rate than in modern America — certainly lower than in the 1970s and 1980s, when the nation was wracked by a surge in criminality. It is also worth noting that crime and gun violence has fallen steeply since the 1990s, even as gun ownership has increased dramatically.

 

[westwall]

May you go in peace in your blissful ignorance, the wonderment of intellectual prowess you shall never realize, and that is sad.

The spectrum has some 16 million colors, and it's as if you can only see the pigments of red, yellow, and blue. If you can't see the wonderful nuance of ochre, cadmium, burnt umber, sienna and thalo green/blue, etc., etc., etc., what palette of joy can ever come to you, intellectually?

Does the above metaphor elude you?

Oh, I can argue with the best, you aren't the best.

 

[Rumpole]

Oh, I can argue with the best, you aren't the best.

Westwall, I retort with a Rumpole-esque twinkle in my eye, as I must express my gratitude for your hasty appraisal of my capabilities. It seems you possess a rather grandiose opinion of your own prowess, and a premature one, at that, which, of course, is your prerogative. However, allow me to remind you that in the arena of debate, it is evidence that carries the day, and as yet, you have presented none. I shall eagerly anticipate your well-reasoned argument, pertaining to whatever the topic at hand is, and, with a modicum of luck, who knows, perhaps even you and I can reach a meeting of mind? One never knows, eh, westwall? And don't let my style lead you astray in your confidence, for it is evidence, substantiation, and/or a well reasoned argument that matters. I'll be on the look out for yours.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[westwall]

Westwall, I retort with a Rumpole-esque twinkle in my eye, as I must express my gratitude for your hasty appraisal of my capabilities. It seems you possess a rather grandiose opinion of your own prowess, and a premature one, at that, which, of course, is your prerogative. However, allow me to remind you that in the arena of debate, it is evidence that carries the day, and as yet, you have presented none. I shall eagerly anticipate your well-reasoned argument, pertaining to whatever the topic at hand is, and, with a modicum of luck, who knows, perhaps even you and I can reach a meeting of mind? One never knows, eh, westwall? And don't let my style lead you astray in your confidence, for it is evidence, substantiation, and/or a well reasoned argument that matters. I'll be on the look out for yours.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Rumpole was a typical British character, quirky, and cheap, but ultimately an honorable, and ethical man. Qualities, you lack.

 

[2aguy]

Rumpole was a typical British character, quirky, and cheap, but ultimately an honorable, and ethical man. Qualities, you lack.

I sometimes think that brain357 keeps changing names.....rumpole seems like he might be brain with a different name......