The Amendment to remove the 2nd.

[RetiredGySgt]

Since case law and reality are all against the Courts suddenly deciding military type weapons are not protected by the 2nd and that it isn't an individual right....

Here is your chance, tell us what you want as the Amendment to remove the 2nd amendment.

This is in the clean debate forum, so keep it clean.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not a single response, figures, cowards one and all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're way way way way optimistic borderline naive on what would happen if Thomas, Alito or Scalia were to be replaced by another Kagan.

They would reverse themselves almost immediately

 

[neoliberal]

I dont quite understand what your asking here. How and admendment should be written to help resend the second?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I dont quite understand what your asking here. How and admendment should be written to help resend the second?

The gun grabbers claim they don't want to ban all firearms. So let us see your new amendment that would replace the 2nd.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I dont quite understand what your asking here. How and admendment should be written to help resend the second?

The gun grabbers claim they don't want to ban all firearms. So let us see your new amendment that would replace the 2nd.

There wouldn’t need to be a new amendment, allowing the issue to be addressed only by Congress and/or the states.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I dont quite understand what your asking here. How and admendment should be written to help resend the second?

The gun grabbers claim they don't want to ban all firearms. So let us see your new amendment that would replace the 2nd.

There wouldn’t need to be a new amendment, allowing the issue to be addressed only by Congress and/or the states.

Can't be done without trashing the Constitution and thereby starting a bloodbath.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I dont quite understand what your asking here. How and admendment should be written to help resend the second?

The gun grabbers claim they don't want to ban all firearms. So let us see your new amendment that would replace the 2nd.

There wouldn’t need to be a new amendment, allowing the issue to be addressed only by Congress and/or the states.

Right now case law states that military style weapons are protected by the second, further that it is an individual right. Pray tell how does the Congress ban "assault weapons" with that case law?

 

[Katzndogz]

The mistake is in believing that a law against assault weapons would get them off the streets. The reality is those weapons would become more valuable.

 

[candycorn]

Ban nothing.
Tax $500 per pistol, $1,000 per rifle.

Jack up license and renewal fees. Tax bullets, shells, materials to make bullets, shells, etc....

Tax rifle scopes, laser sights, and holsters.

Call it "mayhem taxes" to help pay for the damage that they cause.

Either that or just come to the all-too-evident conclusion that the 2nd amendment was an idiotic amendment written prior to gasoline engines and has no place in an advanced society.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ban nothing.
Tax $500 per pistol, $1,000 per rifle.

Jack up license and renewal fees. Tax bullets, shells, materials to make bullets, shells, etc....

Tax rifle scopes, laser sights, and holsters.

Call it "mayhem taxes" to help pay for the damage that they cause.

Either that or just come to the all-too-evident conclusion that the 2nd amendment was an idiotic amendment written prior to gasoline engines and has no place in an advanced society.

But asking someone to present photo ID at the voting booth is a "poll tax" amiright?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ban nothing.
Tax $500 per pistol, $1,000 per rifle.

Jack up license and renewal fees. Tax bullets, shells, materials to make bullets, shells, etc....

Tax rifle scopes, laser sights, and holsters.

Call it "mayhem taxes" to help pay for the damage that they cause.

That would be effectively banning them and thus would be found unconstitutional as well.

Either that or just come to the all-too-evident conclusion that the 2nd amendment was an idiotic amendment written prior to gasoline engines and has no place in an advanced society.

Naturally, what kind of idiot believes he should have the right to defend his family from a home invader or attacker out on the street? We should all just be sitting ducks every day and hope the numbers game goes in our favor, that we won't be the household that the criminals, who illegally obtain the banned guns, break into in the middle of the night, steal our possessions, rape our wives right in front of us, and hopefully let us live before they leave. Maybe it will happen to you some day since I'm guessing your the proud owner of a gun free house. I can only hope you're so lucky to experience that scenario, because I'm thinking it may be the only way you'll be able to emerge from the fog of stupidity and ignorance you've sheltered yourself in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ban nothing.
Tax $500 per pistol, $1,000 per rifle.

Jack up license and renewal fees. Tax bullets, shells, materials to make bullets, shells, etc....

Tax rifle scopes, laser sights, and holsters.

Call it "mayhem taxes" to help pay for the damage that they cause.

Either that or just come to the all-too-evident conclusion that the 2nd amendment was an idiotic amendment written prior to gasoline engines and has no place in an advanced society.

The government cannot tax intrastate commerce

 

[FA_Q2]

I dont quite understand what your asking here. How and admendment should be written to help resend the second?

The gun grabbers claim they don't want to ban all firearms. So let us see your new amendment that would replace the 2nd.

There wouldn’t need to be a new amendment, allowing the issue to be addressed only by Congress and/or the states.

Why not? Do the recent rulings not protect such weapons?

 

[JQPublic1]

Since case law and reality are all against the Courts suddenly deciding military type weapons are not protected by the 2nd and that it isn't an individual right....

Here is your chance, tell us what you want as the Amendment to remove the 2nd amendment.

This is in the clean debate forum, so keep it clean.

Your statement is a non sequitur. A ban on military type weapons is not a ban on ALL weapons. There is no abrogation of the 2nd Amendment there. You still have the right to bear arms. So why do you ask the more progressive readers to discuss a replacement for the 2nd Amendment? I suspect that very few "liberals" want an end to the right to bear arms.

The real focus is on assault type weapons like the AR15 or the Bushmaster. If SCOTUS decides that weapons of that type are not protected by the Constitution then it is your civil duty, and mine, to respect that decision... even if we disagree with it!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since case law and reality are all against the Courts suddenly deciding military type weapons are not protected by the 2nd and that it isn't an individual right....

Here is your chance, tell us what you want as the Amendment to remove the 2nd amendment.

This is in the clean debate forum, so keep it clean.

Your statement is a non sequitur. A ban on military type weapons is not a ban on ALL weapons. There is no abrogation of the 2nd Amendment there. You still have the right to bear arms. So why do you ask the more progressive readers to discuss a replacement for the 2nd Amendment? I suspect that very few "liberals" want an end to the right to bear arms.

The real focus is on assault type weapons like the AR15 or the Bushmaster. If SCOTUS decides that weapons of that type are not protected by the Constitution then it is your civil duty, and mine, to respect that decision... even if we disagree with it!

Dude for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency and must have suitable use for a militia. And must be supplied by the individual member of the militia.
Miller vs. U.S. 1938 and Lewis vs. U.S. 1980

 

[candycorn]

Ban nothing.
Tax $500 per pistol, $1,000 per rifle.

Jack up license and renewal fees. Tax bullets, shells, materials to make bullets, shells, etc....

Tax rifle scopes, laser sights, and holsters.

Call it "mayhem taxes" to help pay for the damage that they cause.

That would be effectively banning them and thus would be found unconstitutional as well.

Either that or just come to the all-too-evident conclusion that the 2nd amendment was an idiotic amendment written prior to gasoline engines and has no place in an advanced society.

Naturally, what kind of idiot believes he should have the right to defend his family from a home invader or attacker out on the street? We should all just be sitting ducks every day and hope the numbers game goes in our favor, that we won't be the household that the criminals, who illegally obtain the banned guns, break into in the middle of the night, steal our possessions, rape our wives right in front of us, and hopefully let us live before they leave. Maybe it will happen to you some day since I'm guessing your the proud owner of a gun free house. I can only hope you're so lucky to experience that scenario, because I'm thinking it may be the only way you'll be able to emerge from the fog of stupidity and ignorance you've sheltered yourself in.

I'd take my chances with the court.

Nobody is banning guns. I don't live if a fog of stupidity unlike some who can't read a sentence then respond to what it states; not what they think it stated.

It has been shown time and again that legal/illegal weapons cause death. We have incrediby high gun fatalities compared to other advanced societies that have the near identical culture of books, TV, music, videos, electronic gaming devices, etc... The only differences are that their religion isn't legislated out of their society and the second amendment that we have legislated into ours--or more correctly the foolish interpretation of the second amendment.

A "mayhem tax" is a bad idea whose time has come. It will reduce the number of guns on the street while not preventing anyone from buying one who wishes to save up for it.

 

[PaulS1950]

This is what should replace the second amendment to eliminate any confusion as was set forth in the original framework to writing the second amendment:

The individual Citizens of the united States of North America have and keep these immutable rights:
1. <cut>

2.a The right of all Citizens to keep and bear arms, including those arms of the current issued military infantry, shall not be recorded, taxed or limited in any way.

2.b Ammunition, components and accessories for any arms shall not be taxed or limited in any way.

2.c Arms include but are not limited to: bladed weapons, firearms, bows and arrows, and any other weapon of offense or defense ever or currently used in either military infantry or civilian use.

3. <cut>

 

[FA_Q2]

Ban nothing.
Tax $500 per pistol, $1,000 per rifle.

Jack up license and renewal fees. Tax bullets, shells, materials to make bullets, shells, etc....

Tax rifle scopes, laser sights, and holsters.

Call it "mayhem taxes" to help pay for the damage that they cause.

That would be effectively banning them and thus would be found unconstitutional as well.

Either that or just come to the all-too-evident conclusion that the 2nd amendment was an idiotic amendment written prior to gasoline engines and has no place in an advanced society.

Naturally, what kind of idiot believes he should have the right to defend his family from a home invader or attacker out on the street? We should all just be sitting ducks every day and hope the numbers game goes in our favor, that we won't be the household that the criminals, who illegally obtain the banned guns, break into in the middle of the night, steal our possessions, rape our wives right in front of us, and hopefully let us live before they leave. Maybe it will happen to you some day since I'm guessing your the proud owner of a gun free house. I can only hope you're so lucky to experience that scenario, because I'm thinking it may be the only way you'll be able to emerge from the fog of stupidity and ignorance you've sheltered yourself in.

I'd take my chances with the court.

Nobody is banning guns. I don't live if a fog of stupidity unlike some who can't read a sentence then respond to what it states; not what they think it stated.

It has been shown time and again that legal/illegal weapons cause death. We have incrediby high gun fatalities compared to other advanced societies that have the near identical culture of books, TV, music, videos, electronic gaming devices, etc... The only differences are that their religion isn't legislated out of their society and the second amendment that we have legislated into ours--or more correctly the foolish interpretation of the second amendment.

A "mayhem tax" is a bad idea whose time has come. It will reduce the number of guns on the street while not preventing anyone from buying one who wishes to save up for it.

Yes, weapons cause death, both legal and illegal BUT it has also been shown that weapon controls and bans do NOT work. Both here and in other countries, strict gun control measures have utterly failed to reduce homicide rates. To say that the only difference between us and other nations is the second amendment and a perceived (yet false) idea that we are legislating religion is utter ignorance. There are VAST differences between us and those other nations. Our cultures are entirely different.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Since case law and reality are all against the Courts suddenly deciding military type weapons are not protected by the 2nd and that it isn't an individual right....

Here is your chance, tell us what you want as the Amendment to remove the 2nd amendment.

This is in the clean debate forum, so keep it clean.

I believe we absolutely need a new Amendment that supersedes the 2nd. And here is why.

Under the 2nd which is HORRIBLY written , it would appear that in fact no laws which even regulate weapons are constitutional; yet all sane people admit that there should be some regulation.

Now, take this fwiw, I'm a gun owner, love guns, but I'm a responsible gun owner who recognizes the danger of guns.

Here is what I believe the new amendment should clarify

1. Your right to own guns is NOT absolute , and under certain circumstances those rights can be removed entirely. Mental problems, felons, etc etc.

All such laws which currently take away rights are in fact unconstitutional as it stands.

2. Your right to own firearms does not equal having the right to carry a weapon on your person. I don't know where this got confused , but in colonial America carrying a firearm in town was illegal. Get rid of gun free zones my ass.

3. ALL weapons MUST be registered and accounted for yearly. Failure to do so results in a complete loss of all right to ownership. This registration is to include the weapons serial number, a firing sample and a complete set of fingerprints of all adult family members who live in the house where the weapon is stored.

Don't give me the BS about that just tells the government where all the weapons are, no one in the government is coming for your guns lol

This list would be stored at the local police level and although the weapon information would be available to any law enforcement agency at any time; a valid warrant would have to be supplied in order for that agency to ascertain ownership of any specific weapon

4. Background checks are required for ALL purchases , and ALL purchases must go through a licensed dealer. No more private sales.

5. For purposes of the right to bear arms, arms include any weapon that is .50 caliber or less. Regardless of firing rate or how scary it looks.

Meaning if your some whack job who honestly believes you will ever need a ma deuce and you can afford one , you can own it provided you follow all the steps outlined above.