The Amendment to remove the 2nd.

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.


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.

Read the dissenting opinion, they do a fair job of laying it out.
 
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.
Read the dissenting opinion, they do a fair job of laying it out.
No... I asked YOU to show how their argument is unsound.
 
You can disagree all you want - it just makes you wrong.

Read the opinion, and it explaine how, in detail.
Please feel free to show how their argument is unsound.
Read the dissenting opinion, they do a fair job of laying it out.
No... I asked YOU to show how their argument is unsound.

Reading what the founding fathers said at the time, what their goals were, they weren't concerned about individual freedom to bear arms so much as the need for a strong defense. Our country was weak and couldn't afford a large standing army and was taking loans to fund what military we did have.

There was also concern about the federal government becoming too strong, so the answer was that the states could have their own militias.

So the 2nd was written.

There was no long conversations about the individual right to bear arms as it really wasn't considered an issue.

There is no question the founders espoused ideas of personal responsibility as it was the foundation of our democracy. But that responsibility these days is (or should be) expressed in the voting booth rather than at the end of a gun.

The idea of a revolution in a democracy seems odd to me. There is nobody in Washington who cannot be replaced (even the supreme court will die off eventually). So armed revolution against the tyrannical government we put in place at the polls sounds like sour grapes to me. As it was in the civil war. And it didn't work out too well for the south.
 
Read the dissenting opinion, they do a fair job of laying it out.
No... I asked YOU to show how their argument is unsound.
Reading what the founding fathers said at the time, what their goals were, they weren't concerned about individual freedom to bear arms so much as the need for a strong defense.
Please provide a quote form any of them that shows they intended to protect collectieve right to the total exclusion of an individual right.
 
No... I asked YOU to show how their argument is unsound.
Reading what the founding fathers said at the time, what their goals were, they weren't concerned about individual freedom to bear arms so much as the need for a strong defense.
Please provide a quote form any of them that shows they intended to protect collectieve right to the total exclusion of an individual right.

That is not what I said. I said it was essentially a defense amendment. Designed to allow states (mainly the southern states), through the militias to take part in the defense of the country. It was put in place to placate states rights groups who were concerned about the federal government completely controlling the military. It also had a lot to do with slavery, since the southern states used militias to deal with slave uprisings and to patrol the south looking for runaway slaves.

University of California at Davis Law Review

This is a piece put together in the 90's on the subject.

There is a quote, often quoted by the NRA from Patrick Henry that he cites. The NRA often correctly quotes him as saying,

"They tell us . . . that we are weak ¾ unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? . . . Will it be when we are totally disarmed?"

But upon reading the entire quote, it changes the color a bit.

"They tell us . . . that we are weak ¾ unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? . . . Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? . . . Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty . . . are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."

He isn't talking about an individual alone, but a force, a militia. And there are many more examples in the article.

This does not mean this has nothing to do with an individual right, as without the individual right, it is hard to have a militia. But the two are distinctly linked.

Of course we haven't had much in the way of militia's since the civil war. But that is another discussion.
 
Last edited:
The entire point of gun control is to make sure criminals don't have to worry about facing off with an armed citizen. There is no other point. It absolutely isn't so that the little children will not get shot because the little children are driving one another to suicide at a far greater rate than they are being shot with legal guns.
 
Reading what the founding fathers said at the time, what their goals were, they weren't concerned about individual freedom to bear arms so much as the need for a strong defense.
Please provide a quote form any of them that shows they intended to protect collectieve right to the total exclusion of an individual right.
That is not what I said.
Thing is, they protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- a right that is borader than its relationship to the militia.

So... whatever reason they may have had for protecting the right, they protected the border right, not simply that which related to the militia.

This is why the court ruled as it did.
 
Please provide a quote form any of them that shows they intended to protect collectieve right to the total exclusion of an individual right.
That is not what I said.
Thing is, they protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- a right that is borader than its relationship to the militia.

So... whatever reason they may have had for protecting the right, they protected the border right, not simply that which related to the militia.

This is why the court ruled as it did.

I understand why the court ruled as it did. I'm just saying it isn't settled as some seem to think.

If public opinion shifts, and it very well could over the next 20-30 years as less people hunt and more people move to the cities, the courts position could easily change as the constitution is about as clear as mud.
 
That is not what I said.
Thing is, they protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- a right that is borader than its relationship to the militia.

So... whatever reason they may have had for protecting the right, they protected the border right, not simply that which related to the militia.

This is why the court ruled as it did.

I understand why the court ruled as it did. I'm just saying it isn't settled as some seem to think.

If public opinion shifts, and it very well could over the next 20-30 years as less people hunt and more people move to the cities, the courts position could easily change as the constitution is about as clear as mud.
Same goes for every ruling the court has ever laid down - and so, I guess -nothing- is settled.
How often does the court reverse itself?
 
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.


Your text is repeated below for clarity. My replies are in bold italics.


********************************************************************
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.

Clearly, it is not unconstitutional to deny criminals various things that law abiding citizens cannot be denied. It is ludicrous to think that denying a prisoner the right to possess weapons is unconstitutional. You write as if it is unconstitutional to deny prisoners to bring their guns and personal belongings into their cells in a footlocker.

When the law is broken and the perp convicted, certain rights are removed from the perps life. In some cases, the life of the perp is taken.

Once a person has proved that he/she cannot be trusted to abide by the law, that person must be restricted appropriately. Misdemeanors logically deserve less restriction than felonies. Repetition of crimes calls for more restrictions than first offenses. It's a graduated thing. I do not agree that ALL felons should be forever denied the possession of firearms, but to deny firearms to a person convicted of armed robbery is certainly not incorrect...nor is it unconstitutional.


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.

What part of "to bear arms" is confusing you? "To bear"="to carry". Carry laws have seen both extremes through history. "Check your guns at the door" rules and "No weapons" rules can be at the discretion of any private business owner. Most courts prohibit weapons through the door as do airports, government buildings, schools, churches, college campuses and such. These gun free zones will likely never go away.

The fact that they are known to be gun free is why most of our mass shootings occur at schools, college campuses and the like.


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

Your silly proposed rule will have ABSOLUTELY ZERO affect on criminals and the millions of illegally owned guns already in their possession.


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

Again, you neglect consideration of criminals and the black market. ANYTHING you want is available on the black market.

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.

That would make all standard guage shotgun slugs illegal...but it would be okay to have a fully automatic machine gun.

Lucky for you this is the Clean Debate Forum.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
Correctly stated. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens of the United States from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...should that government go berserk and become tyrannical.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top