The Amendment to remove the 2nd.

[PaulS1950]

The job of the militia was to be able to stand against the force of the federal government if it should become necessary. As long as there are men from the age of 18 through 45 we will have a militia. We won't need the militia until there is an invasion by an outside force or the government turns against the constitution.
That is why the second amendment is vital to the survival of the USA.

The protection of our children doesn't take second place to the right to keep and bear arms - they are the reason it is so important.

 

[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.

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?

That 5 seconds it takes to reload could mean the difference between one or two people being killed, or many.

The only reason Laughtner was stopped was because he had to reload, and was taken down by unarmed people.

 

[PaulS1950]

I takes less than two seconds to drop the magazine from the gun, put a new magazine in it and start firing again. It takes more time than that two seconds for a person to realize that he is reloading and get up off the floor to rush in - that person is the next one shot.
It takes almost two seconds to pull a gun from a holster, get the sights lined up on your target and fire.
That would end the crime spree without getting yourself killed.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I takes less than two seconds to drop the magazine from the gun, put a new magazine in it and start firing again. It takes more time than that two seconds for a person to realize that he is reloading and get up off the floor to rush in - that person is the next one shot.
It takes almost two seconds to pull a gun from a holster, get the sights lined up on your target and fire.
That would end the crime spree without getting yourself killed.

Like I said, Laughtner was stopped when he had to reload, and he was stopped by unarmed people.

Incidentally, one guy at the event happened to have a CC permit, and he even admitted himself that he saw one person on the ground and almost shot. If he did, he would have killed the wrong person.

Zamudio saw a young man squirming on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.

Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide.

He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.

As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man — it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). The gun the older man was holding had been wrestled away from the shooter. Police later identified 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner as the suspect.

"I could have very easily done the wrong thing and hurt a lot more people," said Zamudio, who helped subdue the suspect until authorities arrived.

The fact that Zamudio was carrying a gun, and his split-second decision to keep it in his pocket, has come to encapsulate the complexity of the national gun debate.

Gun rights advocates say his quick action showed that a well-armed — and well-trained — person could protect himself and the public.

But gun control advocates see Zamudio's story as an example of how Arizona's gun-friendly culture and lax gun laws have not only failed to make the streets safer, but also have potentially endangered lives.

"They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this,' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."

Tucson shooting fires up gun debate - Los Angeles Times

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Like I said, Laughtner was stopped when he had to reload, and he was stopped by unarmed people."

And armed people might have stopped him long before he needed to reload

 

[ABikerSailor]

"Like I said, Laughtner was stopped when he had to reload, and he was stopped by unarmed people."

And armed people might have stopped him long before he needed to reload

Zamudio was there, he had a CC permit, and his weapon was on him.

He even admitted to almost shooting the wrong person.

So...............since there was actually someone there with a weapon and a CC permit, why is it that they weren't able to stop the shooting?

I posted the article in the post previous to yours, and yeah............he admitted to almost shooting the wrong person.

Unarmed people brought down Laughtner when he had to stop to reload. How many people would have survived if he'd only had 10 round magazines instead of 30?

 

[PaulS1950]

At Newtown two people tried to stop the shooter and paid the ultimate price. One armed and trained individual could have stopped the shooter without giving his life in the attempt.

 

[Underhill]

Every situation is different. Nothing is 100%. The notion that any kind of ban will stop anything is wrong headed. It's about one thing. Making it a bit more difficult to kill lots of people. These types of laws won't stop much of anything a determined person wants to do. But it may have a measurable (Even if small) impact on the number of deaths in these shootings.

As for the purpose of the second, everyone keeps ignoring the historical context. Our revolution was fragile. Until well after the civil war, it was still seen as a experiment that could, and almost did, fail. That is the reason for the second amendment. But the experiment has succeeded. Our democracy is sound.

And remember one thing. The armed populace in America has led to one revolution. And it was the bloodiest period in our countries history. So when I hear people talking up revolution as a plausible or even desirable thing, it makes me sick. 775,000 people died. In a country with 1/10th the people we have today.

Great idea. All because you might lose your 30 round clip (and probably won't outside of NY and California).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every situation is different. Nothing is 100%. The notion that any kind of ban will stop anything is wrong headed. It's about one thing. Making it a bit more difficult to kill lots of people. These types of laws won't stop much of anything a determined person wants to do. But it may have a measurable (Even if small) impact on the number of deaths in these shootings.

Funny thing about putting limitis on fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitution:
Unless the state can show that said limit is an effective means to achieve a compelling state interest, the court will strike it -- there's no sound reason limit a right when you cannot show that the limit has an appreciable effect.

As for the purpose of the second, everyone keeps ignoring the historical context...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[PaulS1950]

The second amendment does not provide for our right to keep and bear arms. It simply was written, like the other nine amendments to specifically say that the federal government has no power to interfere with the rights we have - whether they are listed or not.
The writers of the constitution laid out powers that were granted to the federal government and then stated that all other powers were vested in the states and the people. It wasn't until some thinkers (anti-federalists) said that no constitution should be adopted that doesn't include a bill of rights that announces to the government that these rights are not within their power to change.
On the right of free speach, it was said that you can say anything you wish at any time you wish in any place you wish so long as you are willing to take the consequences. Inciting a riot, inflaming a mob, slander and libel carry consequences.
The right to keep and bear arms carries responsibility as well. You must not use your gun in a criminal or even threatening way - there are consequences for doing so.
The consequences, or responsibilities that go along with our rights are the natural outcome of abusing them. The framers knew that rights carried responsibility and if a person was irresponsible then they would, at least temporarily, lose that right or pay damages or other restitution.
Restricting the type of gun or its accesories for the actions of a few was not an option in their minds. It should not be an option today. Not one of us who legally carry guns have done anything that would constitute a reason to restrict our rights. Doing so does nothing to prevent crime because the criminals will still be able to get them - banned or not. That lack of a defensible position is what drives violent crime. If the victims are not as well armed or completely disarmed then it makes it easier for the criminal to become violent.
It is already a crime for criminals to have any kind of gun. It is already a crime for a mentally unstable individual to have any kind of gun. The laws don't stop them - they are, after all, criminals. Criminals don't obey the laws.
How will restricting rights keep the children safe? The same number of guns will be in the hands of the criminals whether I can buy it or not. You aren't disarming the criminals - just the folks who can defend themselves and others in a similar situation. the doesn't protect anyone - especially our kids.

 

[Underhill]

Funny thing about putting limitis on fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitution:
Unless the state can show that said limit is an effective means to achieve a compelling state interest, the court will strike it -- there's no sound reason limit a right when you cannot show that the limit has an appreciable effect.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Unconnected? Read the amendment. You can try to make the argument that the right to carry guns stands without the militia, but unconnected?

"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."

Originally, when passed by the congress it said, "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."

There is a fair chance that the only reason the second amendment protects individuals gun rights outside a militia, is a transcription error. What a difference a comma makes.

And kids think grammar isn't important?

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2167&context=facpubs

 

[Underhill]

The second amendment does not provide for our right to keep and bear arms. It simply was written, like the other nine amendments to specifically say that the federal government has no power to interfere with the rights we have - whether they are listed or not.
The writers of the constitution laid out powers that were granted to the federal government and then stated that all other powers were vested in the states and the people. It wasn't until some thinkers (anti-federalists) said that no constitution should be adopted that doesn't include a bill of rights that announces to the government that these rights are not within their power to change.
On the right of free speach, it was said that you can say anything you wish at any time you wish in any place you wish so long as you are willing to take the consequences. Inciting a riot, inflaming a mob, slander and libel carry consequences.
The right to keep and bear arms carries responsibility as well. You must not use your gun in a criminal or even threatening way - there are consequences for doing so.
The consequences, or responsibilities that go along with our rights are the natural outcome of abusing them. The framers knew that rights carried responsibility and if a person was irresponsible then they would, at least temporarily, lose that right or pay damages or other restitution.
Restricting the type of gun or its accesories for the actions of a few was not an option in their minds. It should not be an option today. Not one of us who legally carry guns have done anything that would constitute a reason to restrict our rights. Doing so does nothing to prevent crime because the criminals will still be able to get them - banned or not. That lack of a defensible position is what drives violent crime. If the victims are not as well armed or completely disarmed then it makes it easier for the criminal to become violent.
It is already a crime for criminals to have any kind of gun. It is already a crime for a mentally unstable individual to have any kind of gun. The laws don't stop them - they are, after all, criminals. Criminals don't obey the laws.
How will restricting rights keep the children safe? The same number of guns will be in the hands of the criminals whether I can buy it or not. You aren't disarming the criminals - just the folks who can defend themselves and others in a similar situation. the doesn't protect anyone - especially our kids.

Last I knew, 300,000 guns were stolen a year. Meaning that it often is "legal" guns that end up in the hands of criminals. As with most of these school shootings, it's the guns their family or friends owned that are used in these crimes. If those guns were illegal, and those law abiding citizens didn't own them, the criminals would have had to use something else.

It doesn't solve the problem, as their are other sources for guns. But 300k a year isn't insignificant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Funny thing about putting limitis on fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitution:
Unless the state can show that said limit is an effective means to achieve a compelling state interest, the court will strike it -- there's no sound reason limit a right when you cannot show that the limit has an appreciable effect.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You said:

These types of laws won't stop much of anything a determined person wants to do. But it may have a measurable (Even if small) impact on the number of deaths in these shootings.

"It may have an impact" doesnt cut it when you have to show that the limit you want to impose is an effective means this means you have to show that there IS an impact.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Unconnected?

Yes. Read the holding in DC v Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Underhill]

Funny thing about putting limitis on fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitution:
Unless the state can show that said limit is an effective means to achieve a compelling state interest, the court will strike it -- there's no sound reason limit a right when you cannot show that the limit has an appreciable effect.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You said:

These types of laws won't stop much of anything a determined person wants to do. But it may have a measurable (Even if small) impact on the number of deaths in these shootings.

"It may have an impact" doesnt cut it when you have to show that the limit you want to impose is an effective means this means you have to show that there IS an impact.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Unconnected?

Yes. Read the holding in DC v Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Yes, I know what the court decided. I'm saying their opinion is certainly not universally agreed with. And reading the history behind the amendment, I don't know how the courts came to that conclusion.

And it is awfully hard to show the affect, without enacting it. But we can look at the results in other comparable countries.

 

[daveman]

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 extend that to the First Amendment, shall we?

Tax $500 per phone conversation, $1,000 per blog entry.

Tax message board posts. Tax usernames that sound like sweet treats.



Or is that different? Somehow?

 

[daveman]

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.

Do you really think criminals who buy guns illegally are going to pay your tax?

Hint: No, they're not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You said:

These types of laws won't stop much of anything a determined person wants to do. But it may have a measurable (Even if small) impact on the number of deaths in these shootings.

"It may have an impact" doesnt cut it when you have to show that the limit you want to impose is an effective means this means you have to show that there IS an impact.

Unconnected?

Yes. Read the holding in DC v Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Yes, I know what the court decided. I'm saying their opinion is certainly not universally agreed with.

You can disagree all you want - it just makes you wrong.

And reading the history behind the amendment, I don't know how the courts came to that conclusion.

Read the opinion, and it explaine how, in detail.
Please feel free to show how their argument is unsound.

And it is awfully hard to show the affect, without enacting it.

Sounds like your side has a pretty rough row to hoe.

 

[daveman]

Sure they do.

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

But their overall violent death rate goes UP -- because people have less means to defend themselves.

And no, people killed with guns are not MORE DEAD than people killed with blades, blunt instruments, or hands.

 

[PaulS1950]

Last I knew, 300,000 guns were stolen a year. Meaning that it often is "legal" guns that end up in the hands of criminals. As with most of these school shootings, it's the guns their family or friends owned that are used in these crimes. If those guns were illegal, and those law abiding citizens didn't own them, the criminals would have had to use something else.

It doesn't solve the problem, as their are other sources for guns. But 300k a year isn't insignificant.

Acording to the latest DOJ statistics:
Victimizations involving the
theft of firearms declined
from 283,600 in 1994 to
145,300 in 2010 (figure 1). Overall,
about 1.4 million guns, or a six year annual
average of 232,400, were stolen
during burglaries and other property
crimes in the six-year period from
2005 through 2010. Of these stolen
firearms, at least 80% (186,800) had
not been recovered at the time of the
National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) interview.

Maybe before pulling numbers out of your ... hat... you could look them up.
Your numbers were inflated to over 206% of the actual number from the DOJ for 2010.

 

[Samson]

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.

isn't "allowing the issue [The Second Amendment] to be addressed only by congress the same as adding a new amendment?

How can the states "address" the Federal Constitution when it prevails?