Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[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

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.

We have already put in place means to keep those most suspect of doing harm with guns from getting them

Unfortunately no one can predict the future IMO we have to discourage gun crime with draconian punishment

I have long been in favor of mandatory life sentences in federal prison for anyone committing a crime while in the possession of a firearm regardless of whether the firearm was actually used in the crime itself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dear Centinel The same way the Amendment on prohibition was later repealed,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.

An interesting question.

Constitutional Amendment Process

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

It's easy.

When someone commits a crime, that unjustly causes harm to another person, or unjustly violates the rights of another person, you arrest that person, try him for the crime, and put him in prison for a time. If the crime is serious enough, or if someone has demonstrated a sufficiently serious pattern of persistent criminality, you permanently remove him from free society, either by putting him to death, or else keeping him in prison for life, with no possibility of parole or other release.

That's all there is to it. No need, and no excuse, to violate or in any way impair the rights of those who have not committed crimes, or who have “paid their debt to society” for any past crimes that they may have committed, including their Second Amndment right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, criminals are an important constituency to liberals, and to the Democratic party. The Democratic party adopted gun control as a cause, specifically to deflect rightful criticism or being “soft on crime”, while, at the same time, benefitting rather than harming the criminals who were and still are an important part of their demographic base.

Gun control is a pro-criminal policy, and the Democrats favor it because they are the pro-criminal party.

 

[Viktor]

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 way

 

[Viktor]

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?

A recent case interprets the 2nd amendment to allow possession by individuals for legal purposes such as self defense
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Viktor]

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

Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.

If you think I'm gonna give up my right to self defense to make you feel safer, you are the loon, sonny.

 

[Viktor]

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

Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.

Gun control is the theory that a 90pound woman should fistfight with rapists.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.

If you think I'm gonna give up my right to self defense to make you feel safer, you are the loon, sonny.

The loons say that after every shooting, the Second is bigger than they are

 

[Agit8r]

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.

 

[jon_berzerk]

nope

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.

We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.

As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.

More of your usual mindless nonsense.

Persons currently prohibited by federal law from buying / possessing guns.
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

No one disagrees with this list.

 

[Agit8r]

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.

We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.

As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.

Well, pretty clearly we do not. Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.

The other couple happened because of irresponsible relatives or acquaintances providing weaponry to obvious lunatics. And of these, only one person has been held accountable for being such an accomplice. The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days. It has been reduced to a mere market function, because a lot of Americans have no real regard for human life, and no real concept of what constitutes tyranny.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.

We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.

As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.

Well, pretty clearly we do not. Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.

The other couple happened because of irresponsible relatives or acquaintances providing weaponry to obvious lunatics. And of these, only one person has been held accountable for being such an accomplice. The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days. It has been reduced to a mere market function, because a lot of Americans have no real regard for human life, and no real concept of what constitutes tyranny.

Please don't forget people mis-stating the problem in order to further a political agenda.

 

[ChrisL]

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.

We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.

As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.

Well, pretty clearly we do not. Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.

The other couple happened because of irresponsible relatives or acquaintances providing weaponry to obvious lunatics. And of these, only one person has been held accountable for being such an accomplice. The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days. It has been reduced to a mere market function, because a lot of Americans have no real regard for human life, and no real concept of what constitutes tyranny.

Well, unfortunately, you cannot read people's minds. If a person does not have anything on their record that would prevent him or her from purchasing a weapon, then that person has the right to purchase the weapon. Liberty and freedom are not without risk.

And again, just because some irresponsible people exist, that is no reason to prohibit the rest of us from owning anything. How many "irresponsible people" have had children drown in pools? People with children are still allowed to have pools though, and owning a pool is NOT a constitutional right.

 

[peach174]

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.

Nope
You have the ACLU and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall to thank, for them having their constitutional rights including guns.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nope
You have the ACLU and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall to thank, for them having their constitutional rights including guns.

Nope.

If credit for that belongs to any mortal men, then it belongs to the great men who founded this nation, and who wrote the Constitution and the first ten Amendments.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

Yes, with modifications.

 

[Agit8r]

There is plenty of room within the present interpretation to restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. The people in congress are just too busy licking the NRA's boots to bother passing any meaningful changes.

We already restrict the sale of guns to exclude dangerous individuals. Either you don't know that, or you're defining "dangerous individual" a lot more broadly than convicted felons and lunatics.

As regards those two - especially the lunatics - the problem is more a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.

Well, pretty clearly we do not. Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.

The other couple happened because of irresponsible relatives or acquaintances providing weaponry to obvious lunatics. And of these, only one person has been held accountable for being such an accomplice. The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days. It has been reduced to a mere market function, because a lot of Americans have no real regard for human life, and no real concept of what constitutes tyranny.

Well, unfortunately, you cannot read people's minds. If a person does not have anything on their record that would prevent him or her from purchasing a weapon, then that person has the right to purchase the weapon. Liberty and freedom are not without risk.

And again, just because some irresponsible people exist, that is no reason to prohibit the rest of us from owning anything. How many "irresponsible people" have had children drown in pools? People with children are still allowed to have pools though, and owning a pool is NOT a constitutional right.

Who said anything about prohibiting the rest of us from owning anything? I said that the present constitutional interpretation is not the problem. The unwillingness to legislate within the limits of that interpretation is the problem. The political problem, that is.

 

[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?

When the states established their constitution, they delegated a small, enumerated set of powers to Congress. Nowhere among this list of powers is the power to interfere with the ability of the people of the several states to acquire, keep, and bear arms.