The Amendment to remove the 2nd.

[PaulS1950]

Germany required registration of all guns. Before Hitler was in power all the tools were already in place for house to house confiscation - which occured shortly after Hitler took power.

The right to defend ones self and home are rights that all living things freely exercise.
As humans we can use weapons in this endeavor, unlike the animals God gave us the ability to make and use weapons. Carrying a weapon is required to protect ones self against an armed attacker.
It would be difficult to defend yourself against an armed intruder without a weapon of your own of equal or greater capabilities. The second amendment extends thatright of self defense to protection against an oppressive government.
We already have background checks required for the purchase of firearms. Criminals get their guns from sources that don't require checks - they are cash and carry - no waiting periods required.
Most people already have guns in calibers that exceed .50 - 20, 16, 12 and 10 guage shotguns which are used to hunt birds, small game and deer. They are also the most effective home defense weapons. Guns with rifled barrels are already limited to .50 caliber with the exception of a few calibers for hunting large dangerous game, usually African game.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Or the Second Amendment is brilliantly composed, perhaps designed by the Framers to foster such debate as this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

State constitutions would provide the legal framework, with challenges to regulation addressed by state courts.

Of course some states might need to amend their constitutions if they don’t address the ‘right to bear arms.’

I’m not saying this would be better than no provision in the Federal Constitution, but it could be addressed on the state level nonetheless.

 

[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.

Or the Second Amendment is brilliantly composed, perhaps designed by the Framers to foster such debate as this.

A brilliantly written amendment would not even try to foster debate. It would simply point out the law.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Are you for taxing birth control and abortion? $20/ pill, $50/condom A grand for an abortion?

 

[Zoom]

right wingers...what is a militia?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Or the Second Amendment is brilliantly composed, perhaps designed by the Framers to foster such debate as this.

A brilliantly written amendment would not even try to foster debate. It would simply point out the law.

It does. Simply put, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that is so difficult to grasp?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

right wingers...what is a militia?

A fighting group that is free of control from a federal government. That is well supplied and armed with the capability to sustain a fight until the regular army is able to react.

 

[Sallow]

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



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.

Sure they do.

Countries with bans on the sale of guns..have fewer deaths by guns.

Personally? With a very few exceptions, I don't ever see the need for a person to own a firearm. But that's me..I don't live in fear. It's generally a bad idea to have a gun around, especially if one drinks or has a temper. Which pretty much covers most of the population.

Be that as it may, there are things we can do by way of compromise. One is getting rid of military style weapons. Limiting gun ownership to bolt action rifles, shotguns and revolver type pistols would work fine. Additionally, registering, requiring insurance and putting some sort of tracking method in place for ammunition would be nice too. Gun shows and private sales should be either discontinued or regulated to the point where it would be difficult to get weapons into the hands of people that misuse them.

At this point..I don't think anything is going to happen in terms of legislation. It's going to take a rash of events like Sandy Hook before anything gets done. The NRA and the Gun lobby are far too well monied to ever allow sensible legislation to pass in this country. In fact, they've written laws like "Stand Your Ground" that amount to total madness.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Sure they do.

Countries with bans on the sale of guns..have fewer deaths by guns.

Personally? With a very few exceptions, I don't ever see the need for a person to own a firearm. But that's me..I don't live in fear. It's generally a bad idea to have a gun around, especially if one drinks or has a temper. Which pretty much covers most of the population.

Be that as it may, there are things we can do by way of compromise. One is getting rid of military style weapons. Limiting gun ownership to bolt action rifles, shotguns and revolver type pistols would work fine. Additionally, registering, requiring insurance and putting some sort of tracking method in place for ammunition would be nice too. Gun shows and private sales should be either discontinued or regulated to the point where it would be difficult to get weapons into the hands of people that misuse them.

At this point..I don't think anything is going to happen in terms of legislation. It's going to take a rash of events like Sandy Hook before anything gets done. The NRA and the Gun lobby are far too well monied to ever allow sensible legislation to pass in this country. In fact, they've written laws like "Stand Your Ground" that amount to total madness.

I have addressed this many times here. Countries with gun bans DO NOT SEE A DECREASE IN HOMICIDES post legislation. If you want the proof, I can post it yet again but it is a rather long post.

Gun control laws are not effective, period. Britton, the favorite of the gul legislation advocates, has seen increases in homicides directly after both of their major gun legislations were passed. All over the country, the same has happened. Gun bans and gun control legislation simply does not lead to fewer dead people.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

State constitutions would provide the legal framework, with challenges to regulation addressed by state courts.

Of course some states might need to amend their constitutions if they don’t address the ‘right to bear arms.’

I’m not saying this would be better than no provision in the Federal Constitution, but it could be addressed on the state level nonetheless.

I was more focusing on the federal level as you stated that congress can address the issue. I don't believe that is true considering the recent ruling upholding the right to bear arms. You know more about these cases then I do however and I was wondering if there is something I am missing in this regard. AFAIK, there is little that congress can do as to banning 'assault' weapons like the M4.

 

[PaulS1950]

Congress would have to open a constitutional convention to modify the second amendment and then they would have to remove the ninth and 14th as well. The problem with a constitutional convention is that it can work both ways - they might end up with a stronger second than they are unhappy about now.

 

[MDiver]

A ban on assault weapons won't stop those of us from continuing to keep our assault weapons. The bottom line is that we won't turn them in and will fight to keep them. I say, if the government tries to take them, let the civil war begin.

 

[PaulS1950]

A ban on assault weapons won't stop those of us from continuing to keep our assault weapons. The bottom line is that we won't turn them in and will fight to keep them. I say, if the government tries to take them, let the civil war begin.

I would rather not see that happen. If it does then I will be one of those that keeps the weapons and defends my rights. I need to build a network around me again because I just moved but I have begun by getting to know my neighbors. Its a small town and there are quite a few other small towns around with lots of farms so it should be a good place to live and fight if the need arrises.

 

[9thIDdoc]

" The NRA and the Gun lobby are far too well monied to ever allow sensible legislation to pass in this country. In fact, they've written laws like "Stand Your Ground" that amount to total madness."

THANK GOD!!!

 

[catzmeow]

I support the 2nd amendment.

 

[bayoubill]

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.

typical lib solution... put adequate and effective means of self-protection out of the reach of lower-income people...

 

[bayoubill]

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.

let's can the 1st Amendment while we're at it, since it was written prior to the internet...

 

[PaulS1950]

I support the entire Bill of Rights.
I will use the second to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I will defend them for those that understand but also for those who are ignorant.
I will not defend those who would remove even one part of any of the Bill of Rights.

I pledge alligeance to the flag ... and to the Republic for which it stands..."
In a republic we have "universal" rights and that makes us different from other nations.

 

[sparky]

I support the entire Bill of Rights.
I will use the second to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I will defend them for those that understand but also for those who are ignorant.
I will not defend those who would remove even one part of any of the Bill of Rights.

.

NRA meet ACLU?

gee, go figure , the right wind wack jobs having lunch with the left wing wack jobs !

as far as i can see, both are a dismal failure here, living in a police state which has sugardaddy HS greasing every Barney Fife into swat team status , legislating more laws than a library could hold , while holding us in ignorance of them, etc

just wtf are we 'free' to do, other than howl in the ascii wilderness about how bad backwards 3rd world countries are in comparission?

so what if they trashed the 2nd tomorrow?

what would really change other than the gun queers here having a cow?

whop-ti-do!

~S~