Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Sally Vater]

I will only accept the constitution..."shall not be infringed".

 

[danielpalos]

I will only accept the constitution..."shall not be infringed".

yes; only that which is necessary to the security of a free State shall not be Infringed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see no reason to compromise at all. To leftists, "compromise" always means "surrender and give us what we want". I'm opposed to that, anyway, and in this case, we have no reason to give them anything at all. Certainly, they have nothing to give us in return, nor would they give us anything even if they did.

 

[danielpalos]

if only, gun lovers would love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

 

[turtledude]

I see no reason to compromise at all. To leftists, "compromise" always means "surrender and give us what we want". I'm opposed to that, anyway, and in this case, we have no reason to give them anything at all. Certainly, they have nothing to give us in return, nor would they give us anything even if they did.

real compromise as intended by the founders

leave free citizens alone and they won't shoot you

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see no reason to compromise at all. To leftists, "compromise" always means "surrender and give us what we want". I'm opposed to that, anyway, and in this case, we have no reason to give them anything at all. Certainly, they have nothing to give us in return, nor would they give us anything even if they did.

real compromise as intended by the founders

leave free citizens alone and they won't shoot you

Seems like a good deal to me.

 

[turtledude]

I see no reason to compromise at all. To leftists, "compromise" always means "surrender and give us what we want". I'm opposed to that, anyway, and in this case, we have no reason to give them anything at all. Certainly, they have nothing to give us in return, nor would they give us anything even if they did.

real compromise as intended by the founders

leave free citizens alone and they won't shoot you

Seems like a good deal to me.

an excellent trade!

 

[ChrisL]

Our rights are not something that we should ever "compromise" on. That would be stupid.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Absolutely not, but just for arguments sake would people like me not have to join your state defence force?
I'm a US Army Veteran and I have weapons training. I'm also curious as to how your suggestion would effect someone like a poor single mother who just wants to defend her family and home in a crime-ridden neighbourhood?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Well, I can see the benefit to YOU, since this is basically a plan where we concede you everything you could ever possibly want, short of simply confiscating all firearms.

Question is, what possible reason could WE have for agreeing to this crap?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

yes, a right to defend ourselves against common criminals, ISIS, and, most importantly, liberal govt!!


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

 

[turtledude]

Here is the compromise the founders believed in

DON'T TRY TO CONFISCATE OR BAN honest citizens firearms and THEY WON'T SHOOT YOU

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Hi Pedro de San Patricio
I would suggest keeping the wording as is.
But agreeing to interpret "right of the people" as right of Law-abiding Citizens.
To teach all citizens that nobody has the right to use arms to break the law,
it is only for defending laws. That should be taught as the spirit of the contract.

Then leave it to the people to work it out with govt (local, city state county federal etc.)
what constitutes law abiding and how to go about screening and training citizens with firearms. Example: see Welcome to The Armed Citizen Project | Armed Citizen Project
for policies I would teach all citizens as a minimum requirement for
legal competence: ethics-commission.net I would teach citizens that
if we want equal civil rights and protections, we have to enforce these same standards.

On that point I would suggest that citizens take the same training and Constitutional oath
as police and military officers are required to, including screening. If our police and veterans
are expected to go through extensive screening and training, before being authorized to use deadly force,
it makes sense to offer the same to citizens.

But that does not mean citizens have to join the military or police.
You can be licensed to teach but don't have to become a teacher in public schools to teach.

I would suggest that citizens work with local police and teachers unions,
and agree on what policies to use to make sure the training to use arms
is for defense of the law, and this would deter and prevent arms from being used to break laws.
I would recommend using public school facilities to train all citizens in the same laws
and procedures that police are expected to enforce.

Again, this doesn't mean that citizens can or should be required to join the armed forces,
but the training should be standard. So that all citizens agree to follow due process
and not to act outside legal authority when using arms for defense of the law.

 

[Centinel]

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?

Which of congress' powers (as enumerated in Art I, section 8) would permit it to enact such legislation?

 

[miketx]

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?

Gun banner.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Which of congress' powers (as enumerated in Art I, section 8) would permit it to enact such legislation?

CORRECTED

Dear Centinel The same way the Amendment on prohibition was later repealed,
[ratification by the States] is needed to amend or revise Constitutional Amendments.

In this case I would more recommend an agreement on interpreting the Amendment.
If this is agreed upon and put into writing, it can be added as a clarifying section
(such as sections 1-5 under Amendment 14).

Since this touches on a political belief about the "right to bear arms"
which is held as sacred similar to the right to vote, I would recommend
a consensus on how to interpret it if anything is going to be committed to as public law.

Where there is conflict, that means the two sided beliefs are competing, and that's the whole problem.

The point is to reach an agreement how to interpret the law to satisfy both, not impose one or exclude the other.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Dear Centinel The same way the Amendment on prohibition was later repealed,
Congress can amend or revise Constitutional Amendments.

No, Congress most certainly does not have that power.

 

[Skull Pilot]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

The point of the amendment is not to arm the militia

It is to preserve the right of the people to own arm so they can in the need arise organize a militia

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Centinel The same way the Amendment on prohibition was later repealed,
Congress can amend or revise Constitutional Amendments.

No, Congress most certainly does not have that power.

I thought States had to ratify Amendments and then Congress or the Senate had to confirm the ratification? Who confirms that enough States have ratified any Amendments or changes to Amendments? That isn't done through Congress? Sorry if I misstated what I meant.

 

[emilynghiem]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

The point of the amendment is not to arm the militia

It is to preserve the right of the people to own arm so they can in the need arise organize a militia

At the time of the Second Amendment and similar laws, some of the states didn't even have their own militias. So it could not have meant state militias only.

I believe people have the right to both interpretations, but not to impose one at the exclusion of the other.
If you want to believe it means militias only, that's a person's right, but cannot be imposed on others who believe it means ANY person who seeks to bear arms to defend the laws, even if govt is the violator of the laws being defended.

I find the REAL issue is whether or not arms are used by someone with law abiding intent or with criminal intent. And how do we keep the arms away from those with criminal intent while respecting due process. It isn't fair to deprive law abiding citizens of liberty because of other people's crimes.
So how do we achieve effective deterrence without harming the law abiding citizens. That's the issue.