What would you do with the second amendment?

[Jarlaxle]

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a fucking commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...

There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.

Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.

Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.

Out and out lie.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.

Not familiar with the Parkland shooting are you, Daryl?

Why don't you tell me how that happened?

Sure, government took away the guns from teachers and administrators with CC permits then the police sat outside while they got shot.

You, who said "The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives," said government has to make even more sure they can't defend themselves in the future to make them safer.

You're not the sharpest nob in the drawer

There have been more firearm "Accidents" on school grounds by the"Staff" carrying than the mass shooters have caused. Not a good idea to arm the "Staff" unless that staff is well trained Security types whose sole job is security. You must like to see more school shooting whether it be by design or by accident. I don't want to see either.

Have any actual proof of this assertion?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.

Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.

Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.

This ruling showed they did not.

I read the whole thing. What was supposed to be presented to the Supreme Court was not what was presented. It ended up being about protecting property, not lives. With what was presented to the Supreme Court, they had no choice but to rule that way. They may know what you mean but they can only rule on the law you are presenting to them. I suggest it be readdressed and presented by a much smarter bunch of lawyers. This last bunch are nothing but fee grabbers.

The Supreme Court is very careful about what they’ll hear. If they felt that way, they would have refused the case. Your grasping at straws to defend an indefensible position. The ruling established that police do not have a duty to protect you. This happened as recently as Parkland.

And it was condemned at every level of law enforcement. There is something called Traditions and Customs that goes a lot further than laws in this case. I don't know of a single decent cop that would not try and lay it on the line to save a Citizens life when called on to. It's been that way almost forever.

 

[danielpalos]

Muster the militia until our security problems are resolved.

 

[Pellinore]

Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.

This ruling showed they did not.

I read the whole thing. What was supposed to be presented to the Supreme Court was not what was presented. It ended up being about protecting property, not lives. With what was presented to the Supreme Court, they had no choice but to rule that way. They may know what you mean but they can only rule on the law you are presenting to them. I suggest it be readdressed and presented by a much smarter bunch of lawyers. This last bunch are nothing but fee grabbers.

The Supreme Court is very careful about what they’ll hear. If they felt that way, they would have refused the case. Your grasping at straws to defend an indefensible position. The ruling established that police do not have a duty to protect you. This happened as recently as Parkland.

And it was condemned at every level of law enforcement. There is something called Traditions and Customs that goes a lot further than laws in this case. I don't know of a single decent cop that would not try and lay it on the line to save a Citizens life when called on to. It's been that way almost forever.

To be fair, since Parkland was mentioned, I can think of one who wouldn't.

Oh wait, you said "decent." My bad.

 

[Pellinore]

We can't leave it as absolutist and anything-goes, if for no other reason than the advance of technology. The advance of everything from Peacemakers to surface-to-air missiles, not to mention the dramatic increase in population density and all sorts of other changes to society, means that we can't just let any person have any portable weapon they desire. (Since the 2A specifies "bear"ing, we'll limit the argument to those that can be carried.) Some gun control - specifically the 1934 NFA and its 'children' - is why we don't have legit machine guns on every street corner; even if 99% of their owners were perfectly law-abiding and thoroughly pacifist, that level of ubiquity would bring on a bloodbath.

On the other hand, our national identity is one with a Second Amendment. We're huge but with a mostly-arable interior, united but heterogeneous, and filthy rich, with our gun-toting cultural heroes along the lines of Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill, rather than sword-wielding knights and samurai. Perhaps most importantly, we (that is, the people appointed by the people we elected) already decided that we're allowed to keep and use them to defend ourselves and our democracy, as long as we're responsible and don't do bad stuff with them. So we can't flat-out outlaw them, or even come close, for example by putting the semi-automatics behind the Class III barrier. That would be an unenforceable, calamitous overreach.

But there's a lot more that we can do. The anti-gun control crowd does have a point in that we need to do a lot better in enforcing the rules that we have - the guy who shot up the church in Texas after skating past multiple checkpoints that should have stopped him, for example, was inexcusable from an executive-branch point of view, and should have resulted in the entire system being intensely scrutinized, diagnosed, and overhauled, if not burned to the ground and rebuilt. Legislatively, there are more steps we can take on a federal level, the specifics of which I'm sure many here would disagree with me on, so we can leave that for another thread. We can do a lot socially as well, destigmatizing mental health issues, taking better care of each other, not giving firearms to a mentally unstable relative, and so on.

And now I've gone off on a policy tangent, but yeah, the Second Amendment has to stay, and though we have the right idea of walking the line between guns-everywhere and no-guns-anywhere, there's still more to be done.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We can't leave it as absolutist and anything-goes, if for no other reason than the advance of technology. The advance of everything from Peacemakers to surface-to-air missiles, not to mention the dramatic increase in population density and all sorts of other changes to society, means that we can't just let any person have any portable weapon they desire. (Since the 2A specifies "bear"ing, we'll limit the argument to those that can be carried.) Some gun control - specifically the 1934 NFA and its 'children' - is why we don't have legit machine guns on every street corner; even if 99% of their owners were perfectly law-abiding and thoroughly pacifist, that level of ubiquity would bring on a bloodbath.

On the other hand, our national identity is one with a Second Amendment. We're huge but with a mostly-arable interior, united but heterogeneous, and filthy rich, with our gun-toting cultural heroes along the lines of Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill, rather than sword-wielding knights and samurai. Perhaps most importantly, we (that is, the people appointed by the people we elected) already decided that we're allowed to keep and use them to defend ourselves and our democracy, as long as we're responsible and don't do bad stuff with them. So we can't flat-out outlaw them, or even come close, for example by putting the semi-automatics behind the Class III barrier. That would be an unenforceable, calamitous overreach.

But there's a lot more that we can do. The anti-gun control crowd does have a point in that we need to do a lot better in enforcing the rules that we have - the guy who shot up the church in Texas after skating past multiple checkpoints that should have stopped him, for example, was inexcusable from an executive-branch point of view, and should have resulted in the entire system being intensely scrutinized, diagnosed, and overhauled, if not burned to the ground and rebuilt. Legislatively, there are more steps we can take on a federal level, the specifics of which I'm sure many here would disagree with me on, so we can leave that for another thread. We can do a lot socially as well, destigmatizing mental health issues, taking better care of each other, not giving firearms to a mentally unstable relative, and so on.

And now I've gone off on a policy tangent, but yeah, the Second Amendment has to stay, and though we have the right idea of walking the line between guns-everywhere and no-guns-anywhere, there's still more to be done.

Very well said. I can see where the guncrazies are going off on this right now. it's called common sense.

 

[KGB]

We can't leave it as absolutist and anything-goes, if for no other reason than the advance of technology. The advance of everything from Peacemakers to surface-to-air missiles, not to mention the dramatic increase in population density and all sorts of other changes to society, means that we can't just let any person have any portable weapon they desire. (Since the 2A specifies "bear"ing, we'll limit the argument to those that can be carried.) Some gun control - specifically the 1934 NFA and its 'children' - is why we don't have legit machine guns on every street corner; even if 99% of their owners were perfectly law-abiding and thoroughly pacifist, that level of ubiquity would bring on a bloodbath.

On the other hand, our national identity is one with a Second Amendment. We're huge but with a mostly-arable interior, united but heterogeneous, and filthy rich, with our gun-toting cultural heroes along the lines of Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill, rather than sword-wielding knights and samurai. Perhaps most importantly, we (that is, the people appointed by the people we elected) already decided that we're allowed to keep and use them to defend ourselves and our democracy, as long as we're responsible and don't do bad stuff with them. So we can't flat-out outlaw them, or even come close, for example by putting the semi-automatics behind the Class III barrier. That would be an unenforceable, calamitous overreach.

But there's a lot more that we can do. The anti-gun control crowd does have a point in that we need to do a lot better in enforcing the rules that we have - the guy who shot up the church in Texas after skating past multiple checkpoints that should have stopped him, for example, was inexcusable from an executive-branch point of view, and should have resulted in the entire system being intensely scrutinized, diagnosed, and overhauled, if not burned to the ground and rebuilt. Legislatively, there are more steps we can take on a federal level, the specifics of which I'm sure many here would disagree with me on, so we can leave that for another thread. We can do a lot socially as well, destigmatizing mental health issues, taking better care of each other, not giving firearms to a mentally unstable relative, and so on.

And now I've gone off on a policy tangent, but yeah, the Second Amendment has to stay, and though we have the right idea of walking the line between guns-everywhere and no-guns-anywhere, there's still more to be done.

You have some valid points but you miss the mark on a few areas.

1) Rights aren’t determined by technology. Apply your thresholds to the 1st Amendment & the Internet. We don’t do it there. We won’t do it for the 2nd either.

2) Rights don’t come from the Government. Your statement about “we’re allowed to keep...” is plain wrong. We are not subjects, we are citizens. We tell the government what it may do. We grant it permission to govern, but not rule. The Bill of Rights outline enumerated Rights, meaning they precede government. They existed before & are thus, God-granted.

3) We don’t have a democracy, we have a republic.

4) If the gun grabbers want to have an honest conversation, then fine. But the demonization of lawful citizens who own guns has to stop immediately. We citizens who exercise our right to own a fire arm will gladly behind crime bills which punish criminals who commit these crimes. But we will not support the criminalization or demonization of those who exercise their rights in a lawful manner. You want to tighten up background checks, fine but we get national reciprocity. That’s called compromise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We can't leave it as absolutist and anything-goes, if for no other reason than the advance of technology. The advance of everything from Peacemakers to surface-to-air missiles, not to mention the dramatic increase in population density and all sorts of other changes to society, means that we can't just let any person have any portable weapon they desire. (Since the 2A specifies "bear"ing, we'll limit the argument to those that can be carried.) Some gun control - specifically the 1934 NFA and its 'children' - is why we don't have legit machine guns on every street corner; even if 99% of their owners were perfectly law-abiding and thoroughly pacifist, that level of ubiquity would bring on a bloodbath.

On the other hand, our national identity is one with a Second Amendment. We're huge but with a mostly-arable interior, united but heterogeneous, and filthy rich, with our gun-toting cultural heroes along the lines of Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill, rather than sword-wielding knights and samurai. Perhaps most importantly, we (that is, the people appointed by the people we elected) already decided that we're allowed to keep and use them to defend ourselves and our democracy, as long as we're responsible and don't do bad stuff with them. So we can't flat-out outlaw them, or even come close, for example by putting the semi-automatics behind the Class III barrier. That would be an unenforceable, calamitous overreach.

But there's a lot more that we can do. The anti-gun control crowd does have a point in that we need to do a lot better in enforcing the rules that we have - the guy who shot up the church in Texas after skating past multiple checkpoints that should have stopped him, for example, was inexcusable from an executive-branch point of view, and should have resulted in the entire system being intensely scrutinized, diagnosed, and overhauled, if not burned to the ground and rebuilt. Legislatively, there are more steps we can take on a federal level, the specifics of which I'm sure many here would disagree with me on, so we can leave that for another thread. We can do a lot socially as well, destigmatizing mental health issues, taking better care of each other, not giving firearms to a mentally unstable relative, and so on.

And now I've gone off on a policy tangent, but yeah, the Second Amendment has to stay, and though we have the right idea of walking the line between guns-everywhere and no-guns-anywhere, there's still more to be done.

You have some valid points but you miss the mark on a few areas.

1) Rights aren’t determined by technology. Apply your thresholds to the 1st Amendment & the Internet. We don’t do it there. We won’t do it for the 2nd either.

2) Rights don’t come from the Government. Your statement about “we’re allowed to keep...” is plain wrong. We are not subjects, we are citizens. We tell the government what it may do. We grant it permission to govern, but not rule. The Bill of Rights outline enumerated Rights, meaning they precede government. They existed before & are thus, God-granted.

3) We don’t have a democracy, we have a republic.

4) If the gun grabbers want to have an honest conversation, then fine. But the demonization of lawful citizens who own guns has to stop immediately. We citizens who exercise our right to own a fire arm will gladly behind crime bills which punish criminals who commit these crimes. But we will not support the criminalization or demonization of those who exercise their rights in a lawful manner. You want to tighten up background checks, fine but we get national reciprocity. That’s called compromise.

If an honest conversation is desired, then conservatives need to stop exhibiting their ignorance and stupidity by using moronic terms such as ‘gun grabbers.’

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns, and no one wishes to ‘ban’ all guns.

And if conservatives want an honest conversation, they must acknowledge the fact that although inalienable, our rights are not unlimited – they’re subject to regulation by government, reflecting the will of the people, where acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The results are clear cut

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If an honest conversation is desired, then conservatives need to stop exhibiting their ignorance and stupidity by using moronic terms such as ‘gun grabbers.’

I believe that is done in response to "gun nutters" from the other side, but point taken.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns, and no one wishes to ‘ban’ all guns.

We don't believe that is not the agenda. It may be what you believe, but the logical result is such, as history has already proved. The "unintended" consequence will be a ban. There are many who DO, IN FACT want a ban.

And if conservatives want an honest conversation, they must acknowledge the fact that although inalienable, our rights are not unlimited – they’re subject to regulation by government, reflecting the will of the people, where acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Which government? I read the 2nd Amendment as a restriction on Congressional power only. States are free to do what they please (or they were).

The will of the people is irrelevant when it comes to inalienable rights. How far does the will of the people get to intrude? What other inalienable rights are subject to the will of the people?

 

[initforme]

This is no doubt one of the top ten dumbest posts ever. I ve been told that the boogeyman is going to take my guns away for 50 years. Same ole empty rhetoric that is pure BS. And people fall for it. God what other stuff do you believe? My guns are not under attack and have never been. The 2nd amendment is strong and will never be changed. Come on lesser thinkers wake up.

 

[Pellinore]

We can't leave it as absolutist and anything-goes, if for no other reason than the advance of technology. The advance of everything from Peacemakers to surface-to-air missiles, not to mention the dramatic increase in population density and all sorts of other changes to society, means that we can't just let any person have any portable weapon they desire. (Since the 2A specifies "bear"ing, we'll limit the argument to those that can be carried.) Some gun control - specifically the 1934 NFA and its 'children' - is why we don't have legit machine guns on every street corner; even if 99% of their owners were perfectly law-abiding and thoroughly pacifist, that level of ubiquity would bring on a bloodbath.

On the other hand, our national identity is one with a Second Amendment. We're huge but with a mostly-arable interior, united but heterogeneous, and filthy rich, with our gun-toting cultural heroes along the lines of Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill, rather than sword-wielding knights and samurai. Perhaps most importantly, we (that is, the people appointed by the people we elected) already decided that we're allowed to keep and use them to defend ourselves and our democracy, as long as we're responsible and don't do bad stuff with them. So we can't flat-out outlaw them, or even come close, for example by putting the semi-automatics behind the Class III barrier. That would be an unenforceable, calamitous overreach.

But there's a lot more that we can do. The anti-gun control crowd does have a point in that we need to do a lot better in enforcing the rules that we have - the guy who shot up the church in Texas after skating past multiple checkpoints that should have stopped him, for example, was inexcusable from an executive-branch point of view, and should have resulted in the entire system being intensely scrutinized, diagnosed, and overhauled, if not burned to the ground and rebuilt. Legislatively, there are more steps we can take on a federal level, the specifics of which I'm sure many here would disagree with me on, so we can leave that for another thread. We can do a lot socially as well, destigmatizing mental health issues, taking better care of each other, not giving firearms to a mentally unstable relative, and so on.

And now I've gone off on a policy tangent, but yeah, the Second Amendment has to stay, and though we have the right idea of walking the line between guns-everywhere and no-guns-anywhere, there's still more to be done.

You have some valid points but you miss the mark on a few areas.

1) Rights aren’t determined by technology. Apply your thresholds to the 1st Amendment & the Internet. We don’t do it there. We won’t do it for the 2nd either.

2) Rights don’t come from the Government. Your statement about “we’re allowed to keep...” is plain wrong. We are not subjects, we are citizens. We tell the government what it may do. We grant it permission to govern, but not rule. The Bill of Rights outline enumerated Rights, meaning they precede government. They existed before & are thus, God-granted.

3) We don’t have a democracy, we have a republic.

4) If the gun grabbers want to have an honest conversation, then fine. But the demonization of lawful citizens who own guns has to stop immediately. We citizens who exercise our right to own a fire arm will gladly behind crime bills which punish criminals who commit these crimes. But we will not support the criminalization or demonization of those who exercise their rights in a lawful manner. You want to tighten up background checks, fine but we get national reciprocity. That’s called compromise.

Quality response.

1. You're correct that rights aren't contingent on technology, but we do have to constantly reconsider how they apply as new technologies appear - using your example of the First Amendment and the Internet, can the government shut down a terrorist message board, or is it violating their Right to Assembly? The Founding Fathers wouldn't have had the slightest concept of virtual online assembly being a thing, so we have to determine as best we can what their intentions were. Similarly, Madison et. al. had no concept of Tommy guns, so when they showed up, Congress reassessed the Second Amendment with those very effective developments in mind, and decided to put them behind the phenomenally restrictive Class III wall, thus preserving the Bill of Rights while still limiting their spread. So, yeah, our rights don't go away when something is invented, but we need to constantly determine how to both apply and retain them.

2. I am aware that the word 'allowed' can problematic in the context of how the Bill of Rights only enumerates the rights granted to us by God, but I was referring to the Heller decision, which was about a law that specifically didn't allow private ownership of firearms in the District of Columbia. As the Heller decision nullified that law and therefore allowed Mr. Heller to keep his handgun, I felt all right using the word.

3. We have both. We are a republic because the state belongs to the people rather than a king or whoever, and we are a representative democracy because we-the-people exercise our power through representatives who we vote into office. We may also use firearms to defend our republic; the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

4. I agree with you on this one. We should not demonize gun owners, and I believe we have the capacity and the smarts to figure out a system which keeps the firearms out of the hands of the killers, domestic abusers, and about-to-snap mental health timebombs, without infringing on the right of the 99% of folks who just want to defend their homes or chase the coyotes off of their ranch, as my cousin Julie does when her goats require. The compromise won't happen without talking, though, and right now no one seems to want to talk.

 

[Pellinore]

If an honest conversation is desired, then conservatives need to stop exhibiting their ignorance and stupidity by using moronic terms such as ‘gun grabbers.’

I believe that is done in response to "gun nutters" from the other side, but point taken.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns, and no one wishes to ‘ban’ all guns.

We don't believe that is not the agenda. It may be what you believe, but the logical result is such, as history has already proved. The "unintended" consequence will be a ban. There are many who DO, IN FACT want a ban.

And if conservatives want an honest conversation, they must acknowledge the fact that although inalienable, our rights are not unlimited – they’re subject to regulation by government, reflecting the will of the people, where acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Which government? I read the 2nd Amendment as a restriction on Congressional power only. States are free to do what they please (or they were).

The will of the people is irrelevant when it comes to inalienable rights. How far does the will of the people get to intrude? What other inalienable rights are subject to the will of the people?

Not to put too blunt a point on it, but that is not the agenda.

At least not the prime, chance-of-happening agenda. There are those who call for a total ban on all firearms, but they are generally speaking through emotion or they have little concept of political or social reality. The closest it gets are bans of specific types of weapons, such as the 90s era 'assault weapons' ban, or the 2010s era sad, flopping attempt at another of the same, but the serious pushes for gun control legislation are more along the lines of universal background checks, bans of some accessories, or age limits. The cries of "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS" are a scare tactic, and the "history has proven that" narrative is a warping of past events. If the day ever comes when it becomes a serious push to ban all firearms from this country, give me a call and I will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you on the Molon Labe Picket Line.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Correct.

The Constitution prohibits the banning of handguns because they “are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” ibid

On the other hand, the complete prohibition of firearms identified by statue as assault weapons is valid and consistent with the Second Amendment, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Sure it is, Sparky. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up the word, "infringed." Then figure out what it means when you put a "not" in front of it ...

it means i can have one of these in the yard>

~S~

Sure you can, just make sure your yard is long enough to allow for takeoff.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations

The problems with your so called "sensible" gun regulations are that they only affect law abiding citizens.

Yours is the correct answer.

If you dumped every regulation right now...nothing would change. The vast,
overwhelming majority aren't going to harm anybody. Never have and never
will.

I'll go along with that, I've always wanted an RPG and my significant other has expressed a desire to blow something up. The only annoying thing I can see about using one at the range, is that after one shot, I have to wait until the range master declares it safe to replace our targets and that would be one shot, an explosion, then sit around a half-hour until the range master gives permission to replace the targets again.

 

[KGB]

We can't leave it as absolutist and anything-goes, if for no other reason than the advance of technology. The advance of everything from Peacemakers to surface-to-air missiles, not to mention the dramatic increase in population density and all sorts of other changes to society, means that we can't just let any person have any portable weapon they desire. (Since the 2A specifies "bear"ing, we'll limit the argument to those that can be carried.) Some gun control - specifically the 1934 NFA and its 'children' - is why we don't have legit machine guns on every street corner; even if 99% of their owners were perfectly law-abiding and thoroughly pacifist, that level of ubiquity would bring on a bloodbath.

On the other hand, our national identity is one with a Second Amendment. We're huge but with a mostly-arable interior, united but heterogeneous, and filthy rich, with our gun-toting cultural heroes along the lines of Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill, rather than sword-wielding knights and samurai. Perhaps most importantly, we (that is, the people appointed by the people we elected) already decided that we're allowed to keep and use them to defend ourselves and our democracy, as long as we're responsible and don't do bad stuff with them. So we can't flat-out outlaw them, or even come close, for example by putting the semi-automatics behind the Class III barrier. That would be an unenforceable, calamitous overreach.

But there's a lot more that we can do. The anti-gun control crowd does have a point in that we need to do a lot better in enforcing the rules that we have - the guy who shot up the church in Texas after skating past multiple checkpoints that should have stopped him, for example, was inexcusable from an executive-branch point of view, and should have resulted in the entire system being intensely scrutinized, diagnosed, and overhauled, if not burned to the ground and rebuilt. Legislatively, there are more steps we can take on a federal level, the specifics of which I'm sure many here would disagree with me on, so we can leave that for another thread. We can do a lot socially as well, destigmatizing mental health issues, taking better care of each other, not giving firearms to a mentally unstable relative, and so on.

And now I've gone off on a policy tangent, but yeah, the Second Amendment has to stay, and though we have the right idea of walking the line between guns-everywhere and no-guns-anywhere, there's still more to be done.

You have some valid points but you miss the mark on a few areas.

1) Rights aren’t determined by technology. Apply your thresholds to the 1st Amendment & the Internet. We don’t do it there. We won’t do it for the 2nd either.

2) Rights don’t come from the Government. Your statement about “we’re allowed to keep...” is plain wrong. We are not subjects, we are citizens. We tell the government what it may do. We grant it permission to govern, but not rule. The Bill of Rights outline enumerated Rights, meaning they precede government. They existed before & are thus, God-granted.

3) We don’t have a democracy, we have a republic.

4) If the gun grabbers want to have an honest conversation, then fine. But the demonization of lawful citizens who own guns has to stop immediately. We citizens who exercise our right to own a fire arm will gladly behind crime bills which punish criminals who commit these crimes. But we will not support the criminalization or demonization of those who exercise their rights in a lawful manner. You want to tighten up background checks, fine but we get national reciprocity. That’s called compromise.

If an honest conversation is desired, then conservatives need to stop exhibiting their ignorance and stupidity by using moronic terms such as ‘gun grabbers.’

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns, and no one wishes to ‘ban’ all guns.

And if conservatives want an honest conversation, they must acknowledge the fact that although inalienable, our rights are not unlimited – they’re subject to regulation by government, reflecting the will of the people, where acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

The Bill of Rights can only be changed via a Constitutional Amendment. All other actions are a gross infringement of said rights.

And yes, the Democratic Party is the party of disarming the citizens. Don’t hand me your bullshit...it’s well documented...

 

[KGB]

We can't leave it as absolutist and anything-goes, if for no other reason than the advance of technology. The advance of everything from Peacemakers to surface-to-air missiles, not to mention the dramatic increase in population density and all sorts of other changes to society, means that we can't just let any person have any portable weapon they desire. (Since the 2A specifies "bear"ing, we'll limit the argument to those that can be carried.) Some gun control - specifically the 1934 NFA and its 'children' - is why we don't have legit machine guns on every street corner; even if 99% of their owners were perfectly law-abiding and thoroughly pacifist, that level of ubiquity would bring on a bloodbath.

On the other hand, our national identity is one with a Second Amendment. We're huge but with a mostly-arable interior, united but heterogeneous, and filthy rich, with our gun-toting cultural heroes along the lines of Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill, rather than sword-wielding knights and samurai. Perhaps most importantly, we (that is, the people appointed by the people we elected) already decided that we're allowed to keep and use them to defend ourselves and our democracy, as long as we're responsible and don't do bad stuff with them. So we can't flat-out outlaw them, or even come close, for example by putting the semi-automatics behind the Class III barrier. That would be an unenforceable, calamitous overreach.

But there's a lot more that we can do. The anti-gun control crowd does have a point in that we need to do a lot better in enforcing the rules that we have - the guy who shot up the church in Texas after skating past multiple checkpoints that should have stopped him, for example, was inexcusable from an executive-branch point of view, and should have resulted in the entire system being intensely scrutinized, diagnosed, and overhauled, if not burned to the ground and rebuilt. Legislatively, there are more steps we can take on a federal level, the specifics of which I'm sure many here would disagree with me on, so we can leave that for another thread. We can do a lot socially as well, destigmatizing mental health issues, taking better care of each other, not giving firearms to a mentally unstable relative, and so on.

And now I've gone off on a policy tangent, but yeah, the Second Amendment has to stay, and though we have the right idea of walking the line between guns-everywhere and no-guns-anywhere, there's still more to be done.

You have some valid points but you miss the mark on a few areas.

1) Rights aren’t determined by technology. Apply your thresholds to the 1st Amendment & the Internet. We don’t do it there. We won’t do it for the 2nd either.

2) Rights don’t come from the Government. Your statement about “we’re allowed to keep...” is plain wrong. We are not subjects, we are citizens. We tell the government what it may do. We grant it permission to govern, but not rule. The Bill of Rights outline enumerated Rights, meaning they precede government. They existed before & are thus, God-granted.

3) We don’t have a democracy, we have a republic.

4) If the gun grabbers want to have an honest conversation, then fine. But the demonization of lawful citizens who own guns has to stop immediately. We citizens who exercise our right to own a fire arm will gladly behind crime bills which punish criminals who commit these crimes. But we will not support the criminalization or demonization of those who exercise their rights in a lawful manner. You want to tighten up background checks, fine but we get national reciprocity. That’s called compromise.

Quality response.

1. You're correct that rights aren't contingent on technology, but we do have to constantly reconsider how they apply as new technologies appear - using your example of the First Amendment and the Internet, can the government shut down a terrorist message board, or is it violating their Right to Assembly? The Founding Fathers wouldn't have had the slightest concept of virtual online assembly being a thing, so we have to determine as best we can what their intentions were. Similarly, Madison et. al. had no concept of Tommy guns, so when they showed up, Congress reassessed the Second Amendment with those very effective developments in mind, and decided to put them behind the phenomenally restrictive Class III wall, thus preserving the Bill of Rights while still limiting their spread. So, yeah, our rights don't go away when something is invented, but we need to constantly determine how to both apply and retain them.

2. I am aware that the word 'allowed' can problematic in the context of how the Bill of Rights only enumerates the rights granted to us by God, but I was referring to the Heller decision, which was about a law that specifically didn't allow private ownership of firearms in the District of Columbia. As the Heller decision nullified that law and therefore allowed Mr. Heller to keep his handgun, I felt all right using the word.

3. We have both. We are a republic because the state belongs to the people rather than a king or whoever, and we are a representative democracy because we-the-people exercise our power through representatives who we vote into office. We may also use firearms to defend our republic; the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

4. I agree with you on this one. We should not demonize gun owners, and I believe we have the capacity and the smarts to figure out a system which keeps the firearms out of the hands of the killers, domestic abusers, and about-to-snap mental health timebombs, without infringing on the right of the 99% of folks who just want to defend their homes or chase the coyotes off of their ranch, as my cousin Julie does when her goats require. The compromise won't happen without talking, though, and right now no one seems to want to talk.

I appreciate the respectful candor, not seen very often on these boards....

Though your terrorist example isn’t very good. They already are criminal & sworn enemies of our country. They have no right to peaceful assembly since their actions are anything but peaceful.

And again we are not a democracy in any sense. We are a representative republic. Our representatives utilize their own judgement when voting on a bill. We might be able to influence their decisions through lobbying, but they retain final judgement.

I do agree no one wants to talk. I also agree that solutions can be found. For that to happen a framework has to be agreed upon. No more infringements on lawful gun owners & citizens rights. Better background checks & stricter enforcement of existing laws also. Though I also believe a thorough review of existing laws needs to occur to ensure 2nd Amendment protections are not abused. I also think the NRA’s long standing gun safety program could serve as a model for education & gun violence prevention. Contrary to what those on the Left think, the NRA has a long history of gun safety education. It’s time to utilize these resources accordingly..

 

[Pellinore]

Good point; it would be tough to drum up much sympathy for a message board full of True Lies-style terrorists. The theoretical works with any group of people who are using an online meeting board to conspire to blow important stuff up.

Yeah, I remember that the NRA was all about gun safety until that 1981 (?) left-turn into gun rights in Cincinnati. I wouldn't be averse to channeling some of their legendary energy into a system of voluntary, extracurricular school-age firearm safety programs, similar to what we did with driver's ed back in the day. I imagine the influence of gun safety and law enforcement professionals would do well to educate the youngsters on the operations, uses, and dangers, it would help toward more skilled future military recruits, and they may even spot a troubled kid once in a while. Yeah, I could get on board with that; I'm sure our bean-counters could find the funding for such a good investment somewhere.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

At least not the prime, chance-of-happening agenda. There are those who call for a total ban on all firearms, but they are generally speaking through emotion or they have little concept of political or social reality. The closest it gets are bans of specific types of weapons, such as the 90s era 'assault weapons' ban, or the 2010s era sad, flopping attempt at another of the same, but the serious pushes for gun control legislation are more along the lines of universal background checks, bans of some accessories, or age limits. The cries of "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS" are a scare tactic, and the "history has proven that" narrative is a warping of past events. If the day ever comes when it becomes a serious push to ban all firearms from this country, give me a call and I will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you on the Molon Labe Picket Line.

When an assault weapons ban is not clearly or logically defined, it can have the effect of a total ban. You can see how that might happen, right?

That's the concern.

Universal background checks? Fine, but that has been loosely defined and does not seem to do anything more than what is already done under FFL.

Bans on accessories all depends on the accessory and how it is defined. Ban on normal, 30-round magazines = you're coming for our guns. Ban on 100-round drums, not as much. Bans on bump stocks, fine. Just know that we can work around it.

Age limits, 18.