The Amendment to remove the 2nd.

[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.

I don't know about taxing weapons, but if we taxed "stupid" there wouldn't be a liberal on the board that could afford an internet connection.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't really see a need for this discussion, anyway. Conservatives hold the House and close to half of the Senate. No way a proposal to repeal the Second Amendment makes it through Congress.
Even if it somehow did, no way you get 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify.

 

[Underhill]

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.

Or perhaps more likely, in their day the issue was a simple one thanks to the types of guns available.

It's easy to say freedom to bear arms when they consist of single shot guns that take 20 seconds to load and fire. When they consist of everything from a silenced semi automatic handgun to a 50 cal truck mounted machine gun, surface to air missiles or a suitcase nuke. Not so much.

 

[Justin_Kase32]

I was just curious but when an assault weapons ban existed from 1994-2004 how many weapons are on record for being confiscated out of people's houses by the Federal government?

 

[Staidhup]

The entire issue is a sham, the FBI, ATF, local law enforcement all have the numbers and data that contradicts the argument the Liberal media, Messiah and his panty waste followers site as justification. Pure nonsense, this is why they now yell "how many bullets does it take to kill a deer", they have been exposed for what they are, lying idiots. How is it with more guns we have lower crime rates, furthermore, that we have lower gun murder rates then most of the strictest gun controlled country's? The liberal media points to England and a select host of other country's that before their ban and restrictions already had lower rates? Pure crap, orchestrated bull shit. The fact is those who purchase guns legally are not the ones that are going to walk out and slaughter innocent people. So how are you going to stop the nut cases that will purchase a gun on the black market? How are you going to prevent that same nut from finding another way of killing innocent people, are you going to outlaw fertilizer? What are you going to do about the gang bangers, boys in the hood, the brothers, the Panthers, neo-Nazi's? Where will your pussy laws be then? So disarm the law abiding and keep codling the criminal element. Talk about stupid liberal fools.
The best thing that could happen is some criminal to break into some liberals house and put a bullet through their head.

 

[Ernie S.]

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~

Put down the pipe and back away slowly.

 

[tjvh]

" 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!!!

Tell me again how the NRA wrote Laws...

 

[Staidhup]

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.

Or perhaps more likely, in their day the issue was a simple one thanks to the types of guns available.

It's easy to say freedom to bear arms when they consist of single shot guns that take 20 seconds to load and fire. When they consist of everything from a silenced semi automatic handgun to a 50 cal truck mounted machine gun, surface to air missiles or a suitcase nuke. Not so much.

Some people are just a little too extreme and blow everything out of proportion for their own good. The second amendment insured that liberty would be preserved and threat of tyranny nonexistent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Similarly, banning Ismal will not violate the 1st amendment becaus eyou can still be a Jew.

The real focus is on assault type weapons like the AR15 or the Bushmaster.

For no sound reason.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Or perhaps more likely, in their day the issue was a simple one thanks to the types of guns available.

The issue today is exactly the same as it was then:
A guarantee that the people would always have access to the means necessary to effectively exercise the right to arms.

 

[PaulS1950]

I thought the issue at hand was how to protect our children from armed assailants....
How is restricting which firearms law abiding citizens can get going to make our children safer?
Criminals don'y buy legal guns. They don't obey laws. They commit the violent crimes so now we need to restrict firearms that the general population can legally own?

Tell me again how passing new laws (we already have thousands) restricting guns is going to lower the violent crime rate? People who believe that have to be a "special" kind of stupid.

 

[MaryL]

It is sickening to bring up our kids survival as second to gun rights. It shouldn’t even be an issue.

 

[Meister]

It is sickening to bring up our kids survival as second to gun rights. It shouldn’t even be an issue.

People that would shoot children or anyone really don't care about gun rights, or gun right laws.
Gun laws are for those who would never shoot your children or anybody in the first place.
Just take a gander at Chicago and what goes on there with all the gun laws that they have.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

I've always hated the fact that "Assault Weapons" freely circulate throughout the Us population. Instruments of death wholly designed to efficiently kill humans with different perspectives than the wielder. Sad really.

I wish there were a way to keep these "death machines" out of civilian populations and contain them, exclusively, to battlefields (ideally, I wish humanity could see how much time, ingenuity, and progress has been and will be completely wasted on the folly of murdering members of it's own species.)

Unfortunately, banning "Assault Weapons" won't help society, not at all
No, if Assault weapons were to be taken out of the hands of the average American then said weaponry would simply end up in the hands of criminals.

Are there really any proponents of this gun ban that think a criminal -- A drug-trafficker, for example-- cares about what the law says he/she can and cannot do? If literal tons of illegal drugs are smuggled into this country each and every day and end up in nearly EVERY street corner, city, or High School in America, then how the HELL will a Assault Weapons Ban keep said weapons off the streets? How will this ban prevent another shooting when a person, who doesn't have an established criminal record or any "red flags" that would keep him/her from buying a gun or guns legally, can do just as much damage/kill just as many people with multiple, semi-automatic handguns as can someone with an "Assault Weapon"?

So...to the supporters of an Assault Weapons Ban: Show/explain to me the error of my ways and the ignorance of my reasoning. Do it...to it.

 

[007]

The entire issue is a sham, the FBI, ATF, local law enforcement all have the numbers and data that contradicts the argument the Liberal media, Messiah and his panty waste followers site as justification. Pure nonsense, this is why they now yell "how many bullets does it take to kill a deer", they have been exposed for what they are, lying idiots. How is it with more guns we have lower crime rates, furthermore, that we have lower gun murder rates then most of the strictest gun controlled country's? The liberal media points to England and a select host of other country's that before their ban and restrictions already had lower rates? Pure crap, orchestrated bull shit. The fact is those who purchase guns legally are not the ones that are going to walk out and slaughter innocent people. So how are you going to stop the nut cases that will purchase a gun on the black market? How are you going to prevent that same nut from finding another way of killing innocent people, are you going to outlaw fertilizer? What are you going to do about the gang bangers, boys in the hood, the brothers, the Panthers, neo-Nazi's? Where will your pussy laws be then? So disarm the law abiding and keep codling the criminal element. Talk about stupid liberal fools.
The best thing that could happen is some criminal to break into some liberals house and put a bullet through their head.

And that hyperbole right there is the biggest monkey turd in the punch bowl...

... THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS *NOT* ABOUT HUNTING! ...

... see my avatar.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

Actually, if you would get your history from actual sources and not the right wing media or the NRA, you would see that it was after WWI that Germany restricted guns, but by the time Hitler came into power, the only people who WEREN'T given access to guns were the Jews.

Restrictions imposed by the treaty of Versailles

In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[1]

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, "Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law."[3]

[edit] The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation, which only applied to newly conquered Austria and Sudetenland, effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7][8]

Gun politics in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the Second Amendment? Well, back in 1776, the United States didn't have a standing army, which meant that any civilian could be pressed into service as part of the militia.

Since then? Well, we now have a standing military, thus negating the need for a civilian militia. If you want to serve this country, join the military.

As far as any regulations? I don't think that anyone really needs more than 10 rounds of ammo that can be readily fired before needing to reload. You want to have a semi automatic pistol? Go ahead, just not more than 10 rounds. And............if you can't stop your target in 10 rounds, you probably need more time at the range.

You want a rifle for hunting? Fine. Use a bolt action rifle, because not only do they have a slower rate of fire (meaning less mass killings), but they are also much more accurate than semi automatics, and accuracy counts in hunting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is sickening to bring up our kids survival as second to gun rights. It shouldn’t even be an issue.

You dont see the bigger picture, which is that the anti-gun left hopes will happen.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

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.

Actually, if you would get your history from actual sources and not the right wing media or the NRA, you would see that it was after WWI that Germany restricted guns, but by the time Hitler came into power, the only people who WEREN'T given access to guns were the Jews.

Restrictions imposed by the treaty of Versailles

In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[1]

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, "Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law."[3]

[edit] The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation, which only applied to newly conquered Austria and Sudetenland, effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7][8]

Gun politics in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the Second Amendment? Well, back in 1776, the United States didn't have a standing army, which meant that any civilian could be pressed into service as part of the militia.

Since then? Well, we now have a standing military, thus negating the need for a civilian militia. If you want to serve this country, join the military.

As far as any regulations? I don't think that anyone really needs more than 10 rounds of ammo that can be readily fired before needing to reload. You want to have a semi automatic pistol? Go ahead, just not more than 10 rounds. And............if you can't stop your target in 10 rounds, you probably need more time at the range.

You want a rifle for hunting? Fine. Use a bolt action rifle, because not only do they have a slower rate of fire (meaning less mass killings), but they are also much more accurate than semi automatics, and accuracy counts in hunting.

So...we should change the Constitution and remove a part of our bill of rights because...
-America has a modern Army.
-The defense of you and, potentially, your family isn't worth more than 10 bullets.
-Rifles are good for hunting.
Well, your idea certainly is... different.

About the mass killings:
Look at it as a math problem.

A popular mall is at it's peak business hours, it is crowded with hundreds of people. A man enters said mall armed with a semi-automatic pistol that utilizes a 10-round clip, the man has 5, 10-round clips on his person not including the clip already in his pistol. The man suddenly beings shooting people at random within the mall. If the said man can fire 10 rounds every 15 seconds, can reload his weapon in 5 seconds, has a total of 6 clips of ammunition, and has the accuracy to hit a person on every 3rd shot, how many people will be shot within 2 minutes?

 

[whitehall]

The ironically named "fairness doctrine" doesn't seem to have a chance and the left isn't going to be able to force conservative talk show hosts off the air so...why stop at the 2nd Amendment? Go after the 1st Amendment and while you are at it throw out the rest of the Bill of Rights that you don't agree with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As far as the Second Amendment? Well, back in 1776, the United States didn't have a standing army, which meant that any civilian could be pressed into service as part of the militia.

1776? You mean 1791. We had a standing army. Argument negated.

As far as any regulations? I don't think that anyone really needs more than 10 rounds of ammo that can be readily fired before needing to reload.

Not sure how this is compelling. Do better next time.

You want a rifle for hunting? Fine. Use a bolt action rifle, because not only do they have a slower rate of fire (meaning less mass killings), but they are also much more accurate than semi automatics

You don't know that much about the accuracy of semi-automatics, do you?