What would you do with the second amendment?

[Bob Blaylock]

I'd repeal and replace. This time combine the first and second clauses into a single statement, and eliminate the ambiguity.

Ex: Every law abiding citizen has the right to bear arms for self defense, sporting and recreational purposes and that right may be regulated but not infringed upon.

To regulate the right would be to infringe it. Your proposal is self-contradictory.

Do you understand what the word “infringe” means? The authors of the Second Amendment chose that word carefully, and with clear intent.

It is related to the word “fringe”, referring the barest edge of a thing. To infringe si to touch that barest edge. In saying that …the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”, what the Second Amendment is saying is that government is not even to touch this right; that government is to keep its filthy hands off of this right and away from it.

To say that this right shall not be infringed is completely irreconcilable with any claim that government has any power to regulate it in any way.

 

[there4eyeM]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Still, no positive suggestions from the "Orthodox 2nd" to what is a problem that will be given a 'solution', even if it is a bad one.

Have armed security or CCW teachers in all schools.
Bring God and prayer back into schools.
Promote two parent families.
Limit media exposure of shootings that highlight the killer.
Get rid of the dreadful Obama Promise Program.
Hold schools and authorities accountable when they don't take action on a threat.

 

[EGR one]

Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations

Sounds like you have a desire to infringe.

Background Checks, Registration, required training, licensing.......it is what our founders wanted

When government permission is required to exercise a constitutional right, it is no longer a right. None of the "sensible gun regulations" in existence today. have made us one iota safer.

 

[2aguy]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Yes...it is......and if you read the Supreme Court rulings I gave you you would undertand this.....

Here....Justice Scalia will explain it to you...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf



Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When I was in high school, I took JROTC. As part of that program, I received training in marksmanship and gun safety.

I think that such training ought to be part of every standard high school curriculum. …

I would have no problem with that kind of training, but if you make it necessary to own and carry a gun, then the anti gunners will increase the requirements to the point that no one will be able to own and carry guns except for the rich and politically connected...this is what they do in Europe.....and it would be in violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

The point of my proposal would be to establish, then, that every adult will or should have received all the training that he needs to safely handle firearms, as part of the standard high school curriculum. No excuse would then remain for any part of government to hold any citizen's Second Amendment rights hostage to additional training requirements, which government could much too easily abused by making expensive or difficult to obtain.

 

[whitehall]

There are already enough restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights to fill a good size book. The faulty reasoning generally exhibited on the emotional left is to do away with a Constitutional freedom in order to fix a perceived problem that is sensationalized in the media. It's worse than throwing a baby out with the bathwater. Why not do away with the 1st Amendment when people shout "fire" in a crowd.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Military folk are overwhelmingly pro second amendment. Only a fucking moron thinks they would turn on their own citizens.

I'm reminded of that famous scene during the Tiananmen Square events in China, back in the 1980s, where one man stood in front of a line of tanks, forcing them all to stop. Even in tyrannical China, the tank drivers were not going to run over one of their own countrymen.

So why do those on the left wrong imagine that here, in the United States, any significant part of our own military would go along with orders to wage war against their own fellow Americans?

 

[MisterBeale]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

NOTHING

And I have ZERO gun rights

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Still, no positive suggestions from the "Orthodox 2nd" to what is a problem that will be given a 'solution', even if it is a bad one.

In what language was that supposed to be? The individual words look like English, but they do not seem to be arranged in any manner that communicates any meaning in this language.

 

[Rustic]

Military folk are overwhelmingly pro second amendment. Only a fucking moron thinks they would turn on their own citizens.

I'm reminded of that famous scene during the Tiananmen Square events in China, back in the 1980s, where one man stood in front of a line of tanks, forcing them all to stop. Even in tyrannical China, the tank drivers were not going to run over one of their own countrymen.

So why do those on the left wrong imagine that here, in the United States, any significant part of our own military would go along with orders to wage war against their own fellow Americans?

View attachment 194501

Yep, Progressives are a bunch of fuck ups the only people that would be backing them would be career politicians/deep state people all of which who are pussy whipped...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Doublethink - Wikipedia

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.​

 

[Rustic]

Still, no positive suggestions from the "Orthodox 2nd" to what is a problem that will be given a 'solution', even if it is a bad one.

In what language was that supposed to be? The individual words look like English, but they do not seem to be arranged in any manner that communicates any meaning in this language.

Gibberish is strong in this one...

 

[MisterBeale]

The US Government needs a list of all gun owners and the weapons they have.

It is the only way we can form well regulated militias

I agree with that as long was we disband all of the military except for the ICBM's.

 

[Rustic]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Doublethink - Wikipedia

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.​

Progressives have always been Orwellian in nature...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When government permission is required to exercise a constitutional right, it is no longer a right.

It remains a right. But government is acting illegally, by violating that right, and treating it as a government-controlled privilege.

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

I'd repeal and replace. This time combine the first and second clauses into a single statement, and eliminate the ambiguity.

Ex: Every law abiding citizen has the right to bear arms for self defense, sporting and recreational purposes and that right may be regulated but not infringed upon.

That would be way weaker than the 2nd amendment now, I wouldn't support that. The current 2nd gives government no regulatory power over guns. Saying government can decide what our rights are makes any amendment pointless

 

[BluesLegend]

The US Government needs a list of all gun owners and the weapons they have.

It is the only way we can form well regulated militias

Based on the fact that not one of those lists exist from the era, your claim is ridiculous. The FF's had a healthy fear of big government so made it as difficult as possible for the government to interfere with the Peoples gun ownership. They would have thrown any person making your claims into the sewer had you had the audacity to make your claim to their faces.

Monarchies in the 1700's terrorized and abused their own people, they forbid them from owning arms so they could not fight back. Hence the 2nd amendment. It does not surprise me that the 1st amendment guaranteed free speech followed by the 2nd amendment which guaranteed the 1st could not be taken away.

AND if you dared say one harsh word about the monarchy they threw you in prison for sedition.

 

[BluesLegend]

When government permission is required to exercise a constitutional right, it is no longer a right.

It remains a right. But government is acting illegally, by violating that right, and treating it as a government-controlled privilege.

When in fact our right to keep and bare arms is unalienable. The 2nd amendment does not grant us this right, government does not grant us this right, it is unalienable, it cannot be taken away or voluntarily given up.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

As those who wrote the 2nd Amendment spoke in 18th century dialog, let's re-phrase if for the 21st century:
"So that each state may form a well-regulated militia to provide for its defense against any tyrannical government whether foreign or domestic, all natural born citizens aged 21 or older and not guilty of violent felonies, may possess firearms that can equal those of any opposing ground forces. Further, any law-abiding natural born citizens aged 21 or older and not guilty of violent felonies, may carry a concealed handgun on his or her person, excluding into any government buildings that may be so determined by each state."