Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, you simply want to ban semi-automatic rifles. That will not stand.Thank you for your thoughtful question, Admiral Rockwell Tory. It is indeed a valid concern that the proposal, as stated, may not directly address the issue of school shootings, particularly when handguns are involved. The complexity of the issue requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond just regulating firearms.
One aspect to consider is that the proposal grants cities the right to ban handguns, allowing for localized solutions tailored to specific circumstances. This flexibility recognizes the unique challenges faced by urban areas, where gun violence may be more prevalent.
Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the proposal is not meant to be a comprehensive solution to the problem of school shootings. It aims to strike a balance between individual rights and public safety while acknowledging the diverse needs and values of different communities. The proposed amendment serves as a starting point for further discussion, rather than a definitive solution.
Addressing school shootings effectively will likely require a combination of measures, such as enhanced background checks, mental health support, and increased school security, among others. It is essential to engage in a wide-ranging dialogue involving multiple stakeholders – including educators, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and communities – to identify and implement the most effective strategies for preventing these tragic events.
In conclusion, while the proposal may not provide a direct answer to stopping school shootings involving handguns, it offers a framework for further discussions and encourages a more nuanced approach to firearm regulations. By engaging in constructive dialogue and considering a range of strategies, we can work towards finding solutions that balance individual rights and public safety, ultimately reducing the frequency and severity of school shootings.
Cheers,
Rumpole
Bullshit! The Second is fine as it is.does not advocate for abolishing the Second Amendment.
Technical point – amendments can’t be ‘amended,’ only repealed.I realize this proposal is stirring up a proverbial hornet's nest, and the idea has about as much of a chance as catching a cloud with a fishnet. Nevertheless, I believe it is time to at least start the conversation. Think of this conversation as planting a seed. There is an old saying: "There is no idea like one whose time has come." I think this idea is just that – an idea whose time has come. And that idea is to amend the Second Amendment.
It is indeed a pressing concern to address the issue of gun violence in the United States, particularly when it comes to school shootings. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, the changing landscape of American society has led to calls for re-evaluating and amending this constitutional provision. The proposed "2A v.2" offers a nuanced approach to addressing this issue, allowing states to regulate guns as they see fit while still preserving the right to own firearms for specific purposes.
First, it is crucial to acknowledge that the context in which the Second Amendment was written has evolved significantly. The original intent of the framers was to ensure the ability of citizens to form a well-regulated militia, as a check against potential tyranny. However, as former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens pointed out, the National Guard now serves the purpose of a militia, making the original rationale for the Second Amendment less applicable to modern society.
Second, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment balances the need for individual rights with public safety. It respects the right to own single-shot bolt action rifles for hunting, self-defense, and sustenance purposes, as well as the right to own handguns at the state level. These provisions acknowledge the cultural and historical significance of gun ownership in America, while providing a framework for states to enact regulations that reflect the values and needs of their citizens.
Third, by allowing cities the right to ban handguns, the proposed amendment recognizes the unique challenges urban areas face when it comes to gun violence. The density and diversity of city populations can contribute to higher rates of crime, and localized handgun bans may be an effective way to address this issue. This proposal also respects the principle of local control, empowering cities to implement solutions tailored to their specific circumstances. Note that in the old west, many small towns required residents, when entering the town's borders, to turn in their guns to the local sheriff's office, yet no one complained about the second amendment. Since the NRA has become such a central force in opposing any regulation of arms, which, in my view, their efforts make it difficult for states and municipalities to regulate arms as the see fit, as they see are needed for their state's circumstances, circumstances with vary, not only from state to state, but from region to region, I feel this is an idea whose time has come.
Finally, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment maintains the spirit of the Second Amendment while adapting it to address the modern reality of gun violence. It offers a flexible framework for states and cities to develop regulations that protect public safety without infringing on individual rights. By updating the Second Amendment in this way, the United States can work towards reducing the devastating impact of gun violence while still respecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.
Also note that since I am not an expert on rifles, my view on single-shot bolt action versus semi automatic rifles is not solidified in my proposal, and I remain open to arguments presented by experts on their reasoning for continuing to allow for semi-automatic rifles. Also note that the amendment allows states to allow for semi-automatics--remember, a constitutional amendment is not a ban whatsoever, it is just being amended to allow states more freedom to regulate without interference from, what I personally view as, second amendment radical groups such as the NRA. Obviously, the NRA and it's hard core believers will oppose this idea, and I expect that.
What argument I reject is the one that goes; "if you ban guns only criminals will have guns". I reject it given that since the stern regulation, the hurdles placed on the path to owning a fully automatic machine gun have vastly reduced crimes for that particular weapon, there are very view crimes committed with them. Remember, 'I am not an expert" and if my reasoning is faulty, I invite your arguments to the contrary, and, of course, that goes for this entire proposal. The details, I'm asserting, are subject to negotiation, but I do feel the time has come for an amendment to the second amendment, one that will allow states and cities more freedom to regulate arms as they see fit, for the needs or their states and municipalities.
In conclusion, although the idea of amending the Second Amendment may seem like a difficult conversation to initiate, it is essential to plant the seed of change in order to address the pressing issue of gun violence in the United States. The "2A v.2" proposal offers a balanced and nuanced approach that respects individual rights, public safety, and local control. By engaging in this conversation, we can explore potential solutions and work towards creating a safer society for all.
*So, ladies and gentlemen, "fire away" (with your affirmations, discussions, and debate/counter arguments. Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun).
Humbly tendered,
Rumpole
***************************************************************Caveat: rude comments, "TLDL" comments, snarky and lazy retorts, disingenuous comments, ad nauseum, will be ignored.
Actually not.The original intent of the framers was to ensure the ability of citizens to form a well-regulated militia, as a check against potential tyranny.
Because you can amend is not a compelling reason to amend. You have failed to offer a compelling reason.An amendment to 2A renders your point moot. Amendments are allowed per the US Constitution.
Not at all, points raised which you have not adequately addressed, let alone refuted.
He has no desire to have an honest, fact-based conversation on the issue.Rumpole
Are you going to answer my question?
I repeat:
Your desire to gut the 2nd is motivated by gun violence - yes or no?
That could be accomplished by overturning McDonald v. Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.Finally, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment maintains the spirit of the Second Amendment while adapting it to address the modern reality of gun violence. It offers a flexible framework for states and cities to develop regulations that protect public safety without infringing on individual rights.
That could be accomplished by overturning McDonald v. Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.
Prior to 2010, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government and Federal entities – the states and cities were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including the banning of a particular class of weapons.
McDonald v. Chicago illustrates the hypocrisy of conservatives, and their inconsistent advocacy of “states’ rights.”
Thank you for your response, Mac-7. I understand your concerns about the motivations behind the proposal, and I appreciate your candidness in seeking clarification.I can prove my statement to everyone except you
Your desire to gut the 2nd is motivated by gun violence - yes or no?
So many words that say nothing and are only intended to blunt your admission that you want to keep taking guns till all honest citizens are disarmedbut rather to encourage a constructive dialogue that explores potential ways to adapt it to the realities of the 21st century.
How about we disarm all security guards, body guards, police, sheriffs, US Marshals, FBI, ATF, DEA, IRS, secret service agents, and any one else that works for the government or big private agency first as a test run for a few years?
They'll be allowed to carry night sticks and whistles instead.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Yes, you bring up an interesting perspective by referencing the McDonald v. Chicago case, which indeed expanded the application of the Second Amendment to state and local jurisdictions through the doctrine of incorporation. Prior to this decision, states and local jurisdictions had more leeway in regulating firearms, as the Second Amendment was primarily considered to apply only to the federal government.That could be accomplished by overturning McDonald v. Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.
Prior to 2010, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government and Federal entities – the states and cities were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including the banning of a particular class of weapons.
McDonald v. Chicago illustrates the hypocrisy of conservatives, and their inconsistent advocacy of “states’ rights.”
Thank you for your continued engagement in this discussion, Mac-7. I understand your concerns about the potential implications of the proposed amendment. However, it's important to remember that the intention of the original essay is not to disarm honest citizens, but rather to promote a constructive dialogue about finding a balance between individual rights and public safety.So many words that say nothing and are only intended to blunt your admission that you want to keep taking guns till all honest citizens are disarmed
How do I know that?
Because you cannot end gun violence unless there are no guns anywhere
But then you will have to ban cars
because even if you take away guns the crazies will still be out there
You do not have a constitutional right to drive a car.The issue is relatively similar for the licensing and regulation of automobiles, noting that we cannot merely license the 'incompetent', because the only way to find who is incompetent is to test each and every applicant. Now, with mentally ill, there are data bases, but not all mentally ill are accounted for, until it's too late. Moreover, the amendment recommended won't prevent a state like FLA to enact it's (in my opinion) insane policy of permitless conceal and carry, but it allows states that do want stricter regulations, to allow them to do it--the amendment I propose grants states more freedom to regulate as they see fit. If you are unhappy with California, you are free to vote for officials who think as you do, or move to Florida, that sort of thing.
It’s clear that the original intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to codify a collective – not individual – right to possess a firearm pursuant to militia service and militia service alone.I realize this proposal is stirring up a proverbial hornet's nest, and the idea has about as much of a chance as catching a cloud with a fishnet. Nevertheless, I believe it is time to at least start the conversation. Think of this conversation as planting a seed. There is an old saying: "There is no idea like one whose time has come." I think this idea is just that – an idea whose time has come. And that idea is to amend the Second Amendment.
It is indeed a pressing concern to address the issue of gun violence in the United States, particularly when it comes to school shootings. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, the changing landscape of American society has led to calls for re-evaluating and amending this constitutional provision. The proposed "2A v.2" offers a nuanced approach to addressing this issue, allowing states to regulate guns as they see fit while still preserving the right to own firearms for specific purposes.
First, it is crucial to acknowledge that the context in which the Second Amendment was written has evolved significantly. The original intent of the framers was to ensure the ability of citizens to form a well-regulated militia, as a check against potential tyranny. However, as former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens pointed out, the National Guard now serves the purpose of a militia, making the original rationale for the Second Amendment less applicable to modern society.
Second, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment balances the need for individual rights with public safety. It respects the right to own single-shot bolt action rifles for hunting, self-defense, and sustenance purposes, as well as the right to own handguns at the state level. These provisions acknowledge the cultural and historical significance of gun ownership in America, while providing a framework for states to enact regulations that reflect the values and needs of their citizens.
Third, by allowing cities the right to ban handguns, the proposed amendment recognizes the unique challenges urban areas face when it comes to gun violence. The density and diversity of city populations can contribute to higher rates of crime, and localized handgun bans may be an effective way to address this issue. This proposal also respects the principle of local control, empowering cities to implement solutions tailored to their specific circumstances. Note that in the old west, many small towns required residents, when entering the town's borders, to turn in their guns to the local sheriff's office, yet no one complained about the second amendment. Since the NRA has become such a central force in opposing any regulation of arms, which, in my view, their efforts make it difficult for states and municipalities to regulate arms as the see fit, as they see are needed for their state's circumstances, circumstances with vary, not only from state to state, but from region to region, I feel this is an idea whose time has come.
Finally, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment maintains the spirit of the Second Amendment while adapting it to address the modern reality of gun violence. It offers a flexible framework for states and cities to develop regulations that protect public safety without infringing on individual rights. By updating the Second Amendment in this way, the United States can work towards reducing the devastating impact of gun violence while still respecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.
Also note that since I am not an expert on rifles, my view on single-shot bolt action versus semi automatic rifles is not solidified in my proposal, and I remain open to arguments presented by experts on their reasoning for continuing to allow for semi-automatic rifles. Also note that the amendment allows states to allow for semi-automatics--remember, a constitutional amendment is not a ban whatsoever, it is just being amended to allow states more freedom to regulate without interference from, what I personally view as, second amendment radical groups such as the NRA. Obviously, the NRA and it's hard core believers will oppose this idea, and I expect that.
What argument I reject is the one that goes; "if you ban guns only criminals will have guns". I reject it given that since the stern regulation, the hurdles placed on the path to owning a fully automatic machine gun have vastly reduced crimes for that particular weapon, there are very view crimes committed with them. Remember, 'I am not an expert" and if my reasoning is faulty, I invite your arguments to the contrary, and, of course, that goes for this entire proposal. The details, I'm asserting, are subject to negotiation, but I do feel the time has come for an amendment to the second amendment, one that will allow states and cities more freedom to regulate arms as they see fit, for the needs or their states and municipalities.
In conclusion, although the idea of amending the Second Amendment may seem like a difficult conversation to initiate, it is essential to plant the seed of change in order to address the pressing issue of gun violence in the United States. The "2A v.2" proposal offers a balanced and nuanced approach that respects individual rights, public safety, and local control. By engaging in this conversation, we can explore potential solutions and work towards creating a safer society for all.
*So, ladies and gentlemen, "fire away" (with your affirmations, discussions, and debate/counter arguments. Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun
Humbly tendered,
Rumpole
***************************************************************Caveat: rude comments, "TLDL" comments, snarky and lazy retorts, disingenuous comments, ad nauseum, will be ignored.
I personally am glad your New York State gun laws do not apply to me while I am in Florida.As a New Yorker I disagree, a federal right is a federal right.
