Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[frigidweirdo]

I thought changing would require a Constitutional amendment but apparently I was wrong.

Rep.htmlProportional Representation What is Proportional Representation?

thirdworldtraveler.com

***snip***

So How Do We Change From "Winner-Take-All" To Proportional Representation?

In many states it is possible to convert to PR simply by changing applicable laws. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are not required. The laws can be changed by a simple vote of the legislatures, or in many cases via a voter initiative. PR can be adapted to local, state and national levels, bringing the democratic promise of "one person, one vote" closer to fulfillment.​

If the political will could be mobilized, it is possible to convert immediately to a system of proportional representation for electing representatives to city councils, state legislatures, and even the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. Senators could be elected by Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), giving voters more choice. As a bonus, PR would spare states the torment of legislative redistricting, an arduous, bitter and partisan gerrymandering affair.​

​

I guess as an amendment it would be the best way, because you're going to need the support of all states and areas to implement it anyway. If one state doesn't do it (unless it's a small state like Wyoming) then it all falls apart.

For the presidential election, if PR were to be implemented it would probably need an amendment because the Electoral College is enshrined into the Constitution. Though something like the French system might work with a run off system where the two most popular then fight each other head to head.

For the House it would be much easier, an agreement with states would probably be enough. There are many ways of doing it. Germany has both FPTP and PR representatives at the same time, though the make up of the Bundestag is by PR.

Also what could happen is simply that in the House the number of votes is based on the popular vote, rather than the number of people in the House. It's not something that actually happens, but I don't see why it couldn't.


Imagine if the Reps had 100 members, the Dems had 100 members and a few other parties all have 100, but those 100 Reps vote, and 75 say "yes" then 75% of the percentage the Reps got (say they got 42% of the vote, then they'd have 31.5% yes and 10.5% no in the House).

The Senate would need an Amendment as each state gets two members. Doesn't work at all.

However just changing the House would have a MASSIVE impact, it would certainly change the presidency and who would stand a chance getting elected.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yes if course I am. And you're a slut.

ha ha ha.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The enemy: Any foreign or domestic government with the active goal of trying to destroy our Constitutional Republic.

And who decides whether someone is actively trying to destroy the Republic?

Biden supporters will say Trump is trying to actively destroy the Republic.
Trump supporters will say Biden is trying to actively destroy the Republic.

So who decides?

 

[LuckyDuck]

And who decides whether someone is actively trying to destroy the Republic?

Biden supporters will say Trump is trying to actively destroy the Republic.
Trump supporters will say Biden is trying to actively destroy the Republic.

So who decides?

Perhaps an administration that would seek to undermine our Constitutional Bill of Rights, like the First and Second Amendments for an example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Perhaps an administration that would seek to undermine our Constitutional Bill of Rights, like the First and Second Amendments for an example.

Well, that also depends on who's interpreting the Constitution, doesn't it?

What does the Second Amendment mean? I say it means something different because I've studied it. Others claim it gives them an unlimited right to arms at all times and all places no matter what.....

The Constitution also has an amendment process. If they try and change the constitution, does this make them an enemy? When it's perfectly legal and constitutional under the constitution.

 

[2aguy]

This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?

Canada.....

 

[Open Bolt]

But many people see the AR 15 as “assault weapons”.

Those people are wrong.

 

[Open Bolt]

The ONLY thing an AR or an AK is number 1 at is mass killing both war and civilian uses.

So why do police officers have AR rifles? Is mass killing a legitimate police activity?

And my handguns and the shotgun does home defense much, much better.

Good luck punching through Kevlar with a handgun or shotgun.

Second, 2A, the way it's written, no longer makes sense when you factor in the National Firearms Act of 1934.

If there is a conflict between the Second Amendment and the NFA, the NFA becomes unconstitutional.

The number 1 purpose to use an AR is for mass shootings whether it is civilian or military.

Actually lots of people use them for protection against foxes and coyotes.

And lots of other people use them for self defense against criminals.

And lots of other people use them for target shooting sports.

Then you would be wrong. Assault Rifle is a Military Term given a complete class of weapon including the AR series and the AK series and the various clones, copies.

An AR is not an assault rifle unless it has full-auto or burst-fire capability.

 

[Open Bolt]

Psst...
The semiautomatic AR and AK platforms ARE "assault weapons".

Actually no. Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

Reference any "assault weapon" law you choose.
All of them refer to semi-automatic rifles.

Those laws contain inaccurate definitions.

You still don't understand the difference between an assault rifle and an 'assault weapon'.
Why?

There is no difference. Both terms refer to weapons that were outlawed some 88 years ago.

Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.

 

[Vrenn]

So why do police officers have AR rifles? Is mass killing a legitimate police activity?

Simple answer. I don't quite remember the date but there was a mass shooting by two people in LA a couple of decades ago where the two shooters were armed with an AR-15 and an AKM, Neither were full auto. The cops were armed with shotguns and 9mm pistols. The cops figured out early on that they were outgunned and bringing in more people armed the same just gave the two shooters more targets. After that, cops started keeping an AR in the trunk just in case.

Good luck punching through Kevlar with a handgun or shotgun.

41 Mag should be able to do it.

If there is a conflict between the Second Amendment and the NFA, the NFA becomes unconstitutional.

And when YOUR interpretation of the 2A conflicts with public safety, then YOUR interpretation becomes unconstitutional.

Actually lots of people use them for protection against foxes and coyotes.

There are a lot of other weapons that do as better job. The AR is merely adequate.

And lots of other people use them for self defense against criminals.

And that is one of the dumbest things you can come up with. Why did the cops feel the need to carry the M1921? Easy answer, the criminals had them and the cops were greatly outgunned. Did they do this by pushing the M1921 to the civilian market? No, they got rid of them with the cops being the last to get rid of them long before the AR-15. And that was the reason the NFA of 1934 was passed. It also covered some other really nasty weapons that should not be on the street without completely banning all but a few. It took them about 10 years to get enough M1921s off the streets to make a difference without confiscations.

And lots of other people use them for target shooting sports.

Fine, but having the AR having to be licensed as well as the shooter doesn't change that. Licensed shooters (CCW) are not the problem and about the least likely to become a mass shooter. Same would go for the NFA licensed shooter. Make a special category for the AR and AK.

An AR is not an assault rifle unless it has full-auto or burst-fire capability.

Are you saying that the M-16 used in the Military today is NOT an assault Rifle? Funny, that's how the Military categorizes it and has since 1963 when it was first introduced into the USAF.

You keep trying to use the same tired crap over and over. Come up with something new.

 

[Vrenn]

Actually no. Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

I see, now you are including burst fire weapons.

b) accept detachable magazines,

Can you imagine reloading one that isn't? Kind of takes away from the intention doesn't it.

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

Aww, you are just making shit up again.

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.

Do you know what it takes to be effective out to 900+ yds? I doubt seriously that on something that would be classed as an assault rifle would have the sights to handle that and the shooter wouldn't have the special training. Anything that is effective at over4 900yds would be classed as a sniper rifle no matter if it were a single or a semi shot. Yer making shit up again.

This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

Good comparison is an AR-15 and a Mini-14. The only real advantage the AR has over the Mini is how fast you can change out the mags. And that is a fantastic difference.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

You making shit up again

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

You already made this shit up earlier.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

Finally, something that actually make some kind of sense.

Those laws contain inaccurate definitions.



There is no difference. Both terms refer to weapons that were outlawed some 88 years ago.

Yes I know if someone pays a ton of money and goes through reams of paperwork they can legally own a full-auto in some states, but that still puts them beyond the means of most of the general public.

Good. You seem to want to have a Champaign diet on a beer budget.

 

[Innocynioc]

If you haven't noticed yet, most every factory stock AR-15 available still has a bayonet lug under the front sight.

That's also considered "illegal" in some states.

View attachment 602942

 

[Innocynioc]

As an elderly man living alone in a secluded country house after my wife of fifty-one years recently passed away I take comfort in having my Ruger Mini 30 semi auto rifle wearing a thirty round magazine leaning against the wall beside my bed. It is not an AR or AK, but it fires the same round as the AK47. It is just a different flavor of the same concept.

If you are old enough to remember the TV coverage of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles you saw Korean merchants on the roofs of their buildings using AK 47s to good effect. Their buildings are the ones that did not get looted and burned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually no. Assault weapons:
a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

That's an assault rifle.
'Assault weapon' is a term created by law, and universally applies to semi-automatic weapons.

b) accept detachable magazines,

The SPAS-12 qualifies as an 'assault weapon' (see above)
So, no.

Those laws contain inaccurate definitions.

If the law defines the term, then the term, as used by the law, is accurate.

There is no difference. Both terms refer to weapons that were outlawed some 88 years ago.

Assault rifles are not outlawed.

 

[Vrenn]

As an elderly man living alone in a secluded country house after my wife of fifty-one years recently passed away I take comfort in having my Ruger Mini 30 semi auto rifle wearing a thirty round magazine leaning against the wall beside my bed. It is not an AR or AK, but it

Same concept, wrong war. The Mini-14 is a reduced copy of a M-14 with a 308 and full auto. And the M-14 was an upgraded version of the old M-1. The M-1 goes back to the old Mauser design. So I can safely say that the Mini-14s design goes back at least 60 years. But Stoner had a better idea making it lighter, smaller, reload quicker and more idiot proof. It took the USArmy about 10 years to figure that out. The concept may have been the same but the way it got there was completely different. And the Mini-14 became a decent Civilian Rifle regardless of what those that watch the "A-Team" believe.

If you are old enough to remember the TV coverage of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles you saw Korean merchants on the roofs of their buildings using AK 47s to good effect. Their buildings are the ones that did not get looted and burned.

And neither did the Merchants in Detroit during the last bit of protests there. But a shotgun would have had the same effect.

 

[Open Bolt]

'Assault weapon' is a term created by law, and universally applies to semi-automatic weapons.

That is incorrect. It means the same thing as assault rifle.

Any definition that says differently is fraudulent.

The SPAS-12 qualifies as an 'assault weapon' (see above)

That is incorrect. It lacks the full-auto or burst-fire capability. It lacks the detachable magazines. It lacks the reduced power. And it lacks the required range.

If the law defines the term, then the term, as used by the law, is accurate.

That is incorrect. If a law includes a fraudulent definition, being part of a law does not make the definition any less fraudulent.

Assault rifles are not outlawed.

Funny how the vast majority of the general public is not permitted to own them.

 

[Open Bolt]

Simple answer. I don't quite remember the date but there was a mass shooting by two people in LA a couple of decades ago where the two shooters were armed with an AR-15 and an AKM, Neither were full auto.

The bad guys' guns had been illegally converted to full auto.

The main problem the police had, however, was the inability to punch through the bad guys' Kevlar.

The cops were armed with shotguns and 9mm pistols. The cops figured out early on that they were outgunned and bringing in more people armed the same just gave the two shooters more targets. After that, cops started keeping an AR in the trunk just in case.

So in other words, ARs have a purpose other than mass murder.

41 Mag should be able to do it.

It won't. You need a centerfire rifle to punch through Kevlar.

And when YOUR interpretation of the 2A conflicts with public safety, then YOUR interpretation becomes unconstitutional.

That is incorrect. An accurate interpretation of the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

There are a lot of other weapons that do as better job. The AR is merely adequate.

Which weapons do you contend provide better protection against foxes and coyotes?

And that is one of the dumbest things you can come up with.

Not at all. You noted above that cops use ARs for self defense.

Why did the cops feel the need to carry the M1921? Easy answer, the criminals had them and the cops were greatly outgunned. Did they do this by pushing the M1921 to the civilian market? No, they got rid of them with the cops being the last to get rid of them long before the AR-15. And that was the reason the NFA of 1934 was passed. It also covered some other really nasty weapons that should not be on the street without completely banning all but a few. It took them about 10 years to get enough M1921s off the streets to make a difference without confiscations.

Civilians have the same self defense needs that the police do.

Fine, but having the AR having to be licensed as well as the shooter doesn't change that. Licensed shooters (CCW) are not the problem and about the least likely to become a mass shooter. Same would go for the NFA licensed shooter. Make a special category for the AR and AK.

That sounds unconstitutional. A semi-auto-only AR or AK is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto-only rifle that accepts large magazines.

Are you saying that the M-16 used in the Military today is NOT an assault Rifle?

No. I say only what I post.

You keep trying to use the same tired crap over and over. Come up with something new.

I do not agree that facts and logic are crap.

I intend to continue posting facts and logic.

I see, now you are including burst fire weapons.

I always have.

Aww, you are just making shit up again.
Yer making shit up again.
You making shit up again
You already made this shit up earlier.

You cannot point out a single untrue statement in any of my posts, including my posting of the definition of an assault weapon.

You seem to want to have a Champaign diet on a beer budget.

Who doesn't?

 

[2aguy]

Simple answer. I don't quite remember the date but there was a mass shooting by two people in LA a couple of decades ago where the two shooters were armed with an AR-15 and an AKM, Neither were full auto. The cops were armed with shotguns and 9mm pistols. The cops figured out early on that they were outgunned and bringing in more people armed the same just gave the two shooters more targets. After that, cops started keeping an AR in the trunk just in case.



41 Mag should be able to do it.




And when YOUR interpretation of the 2A conflicts with public safety, then YOUR interpretation becomes unconstitutional.




There are a lot of other weapons that do as better job. The AR is merely adequate.





And that is one of the dumbest things you can come up with. Why did the cops feel the need to carry the M1921? Easy answer, the criminals had them and the cops were greatly outgunned. Did they do this by pushing the M1921 to the civilian market? No, they got rid of them with the cops being the last to get rid of them long before the AR-15. And that was the reason the NFA of 1934 was passed. It also covered some other really nasty weapons that should not be on the street without completely banning all but a few. It took them about 10 years to get enough M1921s off the streets to make a difference without confiscations.






Fine, but having the AR having to be licensed as well as the shooter doesn't change that. Licensed shooters (CCW) are not the problem and about the least likely to become a mass shooter. Same would go for the NFA licensed shooter. Make a special category for the AR and AK.




Are you saying that the M-16 used in the Military today is NOT an assault Rifle? Funny, that's how the Military categorizes it and has since 1963 when it was first introduced into the USAF.

You keep trying to use the same tired crap over and over. Come up with something new.

You may be reffering to the North Hollywood shootout and the two robbers had modified rifles that did, in fact, fire fully automatic.....

With all of the shooting, the robbers did not actually kill anyone..

The robbers were covered in Kevlar so the police couldn't easily put them down...

The cops went to a local gun store and got Ar-15 rifles...

North_Hollywood_shootout

The problem was the kevlar the robbers were wearing...

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is incorrect. It means the same thing as assault rifle.
Any definition that says differently is fraudulent.

You apparently refuse to understand 'assault weapon' is a legal term with a legal definition, and assault rifle is not.
An AR15 is an 'assault weapon' under various laws, and is not an assault rifle.
An M16 is an assault rifle, and -never- falls under the definition of 'assault weapon'.

That is incorrect. It lacks the full-auto or burst-fire capability. It lacks the detachable magazines. It lacks the reduced power. And it lacks the required range.

No, it is correct. Under any number of the laws that define an 'assault weapons', the SPAS-12 is specifically mentioned.
Thus, an 'assault weapon'.
And not an assault rifle.

That is incorrect. If a law includes a fraudulent definition, being part of a law does not make the definition any less fraudulent.

The law defines legal terms. 'Assault weapon' is a legal term
You may disagree with the particulars, but that does not change the fact the law defines those terms as such.
And so, the law that defines 'assault weapons' defines them correctly.

Funny how the vast majority of the general public is not permitted to own them.

Unless you live in a state that prohibits NFA weapons, if you can legally own a gun, you are "permitted" to own an assault rifle.
The vast majority of people do not live in states that prohibit NFA weapons - and so, the vast majority of people are indeed "permitted" to own assault rifles.

 

[IamZ]

And who gets to decide who the enemy is?

Well that’s where good immigration comes in