Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[danielpalos]

only the clueless and the Causeless, say that, dear. it is like, soo special.

 

[ChrisL]

only the clueless and the Causeless, say that, dear. it is like, soo special.

More nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

only the clueless and the Causeless, say that, dear. it is like, soo special.

More nonsense.

yes, dear; that is all you bring to the table.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear." I am not dear to you and vice versa.

You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means.. Nothing more.

wrong about what, dear? are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.

you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.

As others have patiently tried to tell you, daniel-pos, you are the one who is driven entirely by fallacy and your astounding ignorance.

You have yet to demonstrate the first faint clue as to the intent buttressing the crafting of the Second Amendment.

IF you ever get a clue, you will see that the Federalist Papers are a damn fine source. Until then, you remain forever stuck on stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

And daniel-pos, don't call me "dear." I am not dear to you and vice versa.

You are just a plodding lolberal hack bitch with an appallingly ignorant misapprehension of what this Republic's Constitution actually says and means.. Nothing more.

wrong about what, dear? are you always so special and so slow, even molasses is faster than you.

you have nothing but fallacy that form of rejection and repeal, instead of valid arguments and solutions.

As others have patiently tried to tell you, daniel-pos, you are the one who is driven entirely by fallacy and your astounding ignorance.

You have yet to demonstrate the first faint clue as to the intent buttressing the crafting of the Second Amendment.

IF you ever get a clue, you will see that the Federalist Papers are a damn fine source. Until then, you remain forever stuck on stupid.

still nothing but hearsay soothsay?

 

[2aguy]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. The right to bear arms is an individual right not dependant on service to the state.

 

[2aguy]

You can do that without messing with the 2nd

We couldn't make those changes without "messing" with it. The way it's currently worded implies that every US citizen has an inalienable right to gun ownership. It is also vague as to the exact identity of the militia. That second bit is clear just from the vast numbers of differing opinions on the subject. I'd like to reword it to restrict the unfit (such as the violently mentally ill) from ownership explicitly, define the "well regulated militia" as the state defense force of each state, and require active membership in a local militia as a prerequisite for having one.

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.

Sorry any of those things can be used to deny the Right and are unacceptable. In Britian they now want you to get cleared by a medical doctor before you can own a gun....yeah...like that won't limit gun ownership even more......

 

[2aguy]

If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

The important part?

I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.

Why are you?

Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.

Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.

You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Fair points.

Nope....all 3 could have been in your so called state service since none of them had mental health disqualifiers that kept them from buying or owning guns.

 

[2aguy]

No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.

One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?

Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.

You've got a gun.

They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.

32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.

only 8,454 gun murders in 2013 and most of those were committed by career criminal sociopaths in democrat controlled inner cities.

And bill clinton had his Department of Justice research gun self defense. He hired 2 anti gun researchers who created a study specifically to refute Dr. Kleck's study....and what did these 2 anti gun researchers discover...according to their study, Americans use guns to stop violent crime 1.5 million times a year.....

and as to defeating the government.....poorly armed barbarians fought us to the point where we are now pulling out of the middle east, and all they had were small arms and improvised bombs...vs, the might of the entire U.S. military and intelligence communities......so yes...our guns will help us if the government turns on us.

 

[2aguy]

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

How many of those deaths involve legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners (not including self defense) instead of criminal actions...... very few.

Actually, most of them. 2/3rds of htem are suicides. about 1000 of them are accidents, and the rest are homicides, often committed by people they know.

in 2013 the number of accidental gun deaths...505....in a country with over 320 million guns in private hands and over 12.8 million people carrying guns for self defense....

So no, guns are not a problem...American gun owners are incredibly responsible and as more people own and buy guns, the gun murder rate, and the accidental gun death rate have gone down, not up...

And by the way...the suicide by gun rate has gone down 5% while the suicide with everything else has gone up 19%

 

[2aguy]

Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen is a fine target for a cowardly robber.

Grandpa in the wheelchair and on oxygen with a gun in the drawer next to him has a chance to defend himself.

I want grandpa to win, and the robber to lose.

Thank you for admitting that a Primary Reason does not preclude other reasons.

So little billy takes out the gun and shoots his little sister with Grandpa's gun, and that's okay with you?

How often does that happen...in a country of 320 million people.....

in 2013, there were 69 children killed in gun accidents.....in a country of over 320 million people.....keep kids out of cars...more die in car accidents than with guns...

 

[2aguy]

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia are the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.

I'm well aware of what a 'militia' is.

and, per the Amendment, membership in a militia is NOT required for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

You would see that I agree with you if you read the OP. The fact that it isn't is half of what the compromise we're discussing would be about. You want everyone to get to have one. The other side wants few to no one outside the active military and police to have one. I'm proposing a deal where you both get part of what you want that actually leans closer to you. Require that everyone who wants one register with their local defense force, where they can be given the training they need not to be a danger to themselves and me by professionals. Set the bar for registration low yet not so low as to be nonexistent. It's still technically an armed military force, and you don't want deathbed grampa or Crazy Eddie who lives under the bridge anywhere near one - especially when the Ruskies invade and you're depending on them to ensure your freedom and survival.

Nope...not necessary....there is no need to license gun owners, register guns or require training...all three just lead to the government putting the Right out of the reach of normal people.

 

[2aguy]

You do realize that we beat the best army at the time, right? Or does history elude you? Nevermind.

Really? Did the British army have tanks and drones and bombers?

oh, by the way. The only reason the Founding Slave Rapists won is because the French helped htem. But never mind.

So 67% of them have nothing to do with the gun (they'd have found a different tool if the gun wasn't available)

1000 of them are criminal negligence issues.

The rest are homicides. Almost all of which are committed by people who are already criminals and with illegal guns.

Doesn't seem to me that much would change even if we made guns totally illegal.

Not true- you eliminate a method of suicide, suicides decline.

And most homicides happen between people who know each other.
Which is why have thousands of homicides and other industrial democracies only have hundreds.

gun suicide rates have dropped 5% as more people own guns according to the stats from the CDC.....other methods have gone up 19%

 

[2aguy]

You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.

We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.

I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.

Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?

actually, the major factor....teenage,female single parents.....that is the major cause of poverty and crime.

 

[ChrisL]

What other rights do people want us to "compromise" on? No, we should not compromise our rights because some idiots and psychopaths abuse their rights.

 

[danielpalos]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. The right to bear arms is an individual right not dependant on service to the state.

That only applies to simple possession and acquisition; it is distinguished in paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. The right to bear arms is an individual right not dependant on service to the state.

That only applies to simple possession and acquisition; it is distinguished in paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

Complete nonsense. Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?

The SCOTUS reaffirmed in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. It also struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still waiting to see what we get in return for giving up part of our right.

 

[danielpalos]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. The right to bear arms is an individual right not dependant on service to the state.

That only applies to simple possession and acquisition; it is distinguished in paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

Complete nonsense. Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?

The SCOTUS reaffirmed in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. It also struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

Nothing but non sequiters? Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller claims otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Complete nonsense. Of what use is a printing press if you are forbidden to print?

Heller specifically mentions the protected right to use a firearm.