Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

 

[Correll]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

You can do that without messing with the 2nd

 

[JoeB131]

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

Utnil the next time one of you loons shoots up a school or a church and people finally get fed up with your shit.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You can do that without messing with the 2nd

We couldn't make those changes without "messing" with it. The way it's currently worded implies that every US citizen has an inalienable right to gun ownership. It is also vague as to the exact identity of the militia. That second bit is clear just from the vast numbers of differing opinions on the subject. I'd like to reword it to restrict the unfit (such as the violently mentally ill) from ownership explicitly, define the "well regulated militia" as the state defense force of each state, and require active membership in a local militia as a prerequisite for having one.

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.

 

[Correll]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.

 

[PredFan]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.

The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.

 

[Auld Phart]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

Nope.

If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

 

[Correll]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.

The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.

I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.

Why are you?

 

[Auld Phart]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

 

[USNavyVet]

Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.

 

[Correll]

You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.

I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

The important part?

I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.

Why are you?

Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.

Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.

You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Fair points.

 

[DarkFury]

No

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

No

Care to give your reason?

 

[Auld Phart]

If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

The important part?

I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.

Why are you?

Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.

Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.

You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Fair points.

The LEAST important part.


The IMPORTANT part is giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you want to modify it, remove "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

The important part?

I'm not willing to throw all those old people and handicapped people and women under the bus.

Why are you?

Jared Loughner didn't need a gun. James Holmes didn't need a gun. Adam Lanza didn't need a gun. I hope the reasons I'm totally fine with depriving people like them of having one before they go on a shooting spree would be obvious. Similarly, I don't really consider grampa with the wheelchair and the oxygen tank to be fit for service either.

Part of the reason for the 2nde Amendment is to fight off a tyrannical government. If you're part of the government you're less likely to want to fight them off. So no.

You know the fact that they mention ONE reason to have the Right to Bear Arms, does not mean that it is the ONLY reason.
I am sure that the vast majority of the Founders supported allowing citizens guns for hunting, and protection from dangerous animals, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Fair points.

I'm sure this old timer was glad he had the right to bear arms....

85-YEAR-OLD EL CERRITO RESIDENT SHOOTS ALLEGED BURGLAR IN THE HEAD

On September 2, an 85-year-old El Cerrito man saw suspicious movement in his backyard, retrieved his gun, and shot one of two suspects who had allegedly entered his home. The alleged burglar sustained a gunshot wound to the head.
According to KRON 4, the man was home alone around 11:15 a.m.,”when he spotted suspicious people in his backyard.” As he retrieved his gun, the suspects allegedly made entry into the home “by breaking a back door.”

Fearing his life was in danger, the resident opened fire, forcing the suspects to flee. He then called police. As officers were responding to the call, “officers located one of the suspects on Key Boulevard near the El Cerrito Del Norte BART station.” The alleged burglar attempted to escape, but police captured him and identified him as 34-year-old Shawn Mulberry.

85-Year-Old Shoots Alleged Burglar in the Head