There is no idea like an idea whose time has come: It is time to amend the Second Amendment.

[BackAgain]

Amend it or repeal it.

Those are two of the choices. The third choice is leave it alone.

9 more dead today! Oh no man that is my "right" LOL.

Nobody has a right to commit murder. So, as usual, you’re wrong.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Amend it or repeal it. 9 more dead today! Oh no man that is my "right" LOL.

Murder isn't a right, neither is a felon or insane person possessing any firearm. Enforce the existing laws and almost all gun violence would go away. HIPPA has done far more damage to American society than it has prevented. Make psychiatrists and psychologists mandatory reporters and punish them when they fail to report someone who kills another person.

 

[Rumpole]

No need to provide a link as that has appeared in every left wing periodical and on every left wing news channel ad nauseum...

The acknowledgement is wrong, 2a, as the constitution makes clear, it is an inalienable right, [cannot be taken away in any constitutional manner]

The constitution makes no such claim that rights are 'inalienable' (I searched, but did not find the term used in the Constitution, so feel free to prove me wrong). The declaration of independence, however, limits the inalienable rights to 'life, liberty' and the pursuit of happiness', but the DoI is not law, it's just an announcement and rationale given for a nation breaking from colonial control and it's desire to become an independent nation, written in high minded language. You could argue the DoI is a foundational principle, but the constitution clearly allows for it being amendable, and the courts have ruled that no right is absolute, that they are subject to reasonable regulation.

that is the context it is written in...which dominoes the intent that not so cleverly misrepresents the militia clause as the NG falls under the purview of the governor and not the citizens making armed resistance to a rouge government impossible...it matters not how likely/unlikely that is as the intent here is to dispel and show why the NG does not represent a citizens militia...The NRA best represents the well regulated militia of constitutional intent.

If there were one proposition put to a national vote that combined both the curtailing of 1a and 2a how would you vote?

What does 'dominoes the intent' mean? Did you mean 'dominate'?
You also referred to a government as being 'rouge'. Rouge is a color. You meant, rogue, eh?

Why don't you clean up that paragraph so I can figure out what you are talking about, okay?

And FYI , though the governor controls the NG, in time of war....

The President can call upon the National Guard for federal service in several situations, including war or other national emergencies. The authority for this comes from Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, specifically Title 10 of the United States Code.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Although this provision refers to the Militia, the modern-day National Guard is considered a descendant of the militia system.

Under Title 10 of the United States Code, the President can activate National Guard units for federal service under various circumstances. Section 12304 of Title 10 allows the President to order the National Guard to active duty for operational missions, which can include wartime operations, under the following conditions:

1. When Congress has declared war or authorized the use of military force.
2. When the President determines that it is necessary to augment the active-duty armed forces for a preplanned mission in support of a combatant command.
3. When the President determines that it is necessary to respond to a major disaster or emergency.

In addition to these statutory provisions, the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255) allows the President to call the National Guard into federal service to suppress insurrections or enforce federal laws.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Chicago, China and Nazi German all had amazingly sensible gun control laws!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The constitution makes no such claim that rights are 'inalienable' (I searched, but did not find the term used in the Constitution, so feel free to prove me wrong).

The claim in my statement that 2a is an "inalienable right made clear by the constitution" is due to its inclusion in the constitution, as everything the framers included is an inalienable right...

The declaration of independence, however, limits the inalienable rights to 'life, liberty' and the pursuit of happiness', but the DoI is not law, it's just an announcement and rationale given for a nation breaking from colonial control and it's desire to become an independent nation, written in high minded language.

In keeping with the sophomoric semantics of the moment the "DoI" does not say "inalienable" either, it says "unalienable"...yuck! I feel dirty for even playing along by addressing/mocking it.

You could argue the DoI is a foundational principle, but the constitution clearly allows for it being amendable, and the courts have ruled that no right is absolute, that they are subject to reasonable regulation.

And that is what is so dangerous...everything is on the table and open to arbitrational interpretation...would you vote for your own proposal if it were tied one curtailing free speech as well? btw "reasonable regulation" as it concerns freedom is an oxymoron...it is a subjective term designed to stick ones nose where it has no business.

What does 'dominoes the intent' mean? Did you mean 'dominate'?

No I did not mean dominate, the phrase is stated exactly as intended, it is a grammatically correct short cut for 'once you go down that road the negative affect will be to watch the dominoes fall where the rest of our rights are concerned".
It is the act/art of being concise through the "tight, taut, terse" method of speech, an economy of words...
from there the faux constitutionalist will cite past abuses of the constitution for further abuses on it

....the phrase also has the added benefit of letting me know if I'm dealing with an academic or the socially educated.

You also referred to a government as being 'rouge'. Rouge is a color. You meant, rogue, eh?
Why don't you clean up that paragraph so I can figure out what you are talking about, okay?

No, you cleaned that for me, you found the flaw in my argument and switching the "u" and the "g" around at my expense fixes it...seems you may have just found your niche eh?

And FYI , though the governor controls the NG, in time of war....

The President can call upon the National Guard for federal service in several situations, including war or other national emergencies. The authority for this comes from Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, specifically Title 10 of the United States Code.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Although this provision refers to the Militia, the modern-day National Guard is considered a descendant of the militia system.

Under Title 10 of the United States Code, the President can activate National Guard units for federal service under various circumstances. Section 12304 of Title 10 allows the President to order the National Guard to active duty for operational missions, which can include wartime operations, under the following conditions:

1. When Congress has declared war or authorized the use of military force.
2. When the President determines that it is necessary to augment the active-duty armed forces for a preplanned mission in support of a combatant command.
3. When the President determines that it is necessary to respond to a major disaster or emergency.

In addition to these statutory provisions, the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255) allows the President to call the National Guard into federal service to suppress insurrections or enforce federal laws.

The above is completely irrelevant to the conversation...
...it is merely misdirection that pretends to addresses my point about civilian vs. the government control of the militia by explaining which part of the government state militia falls...
And claiming the above is the case, then citizens would be without arms and on their own.

"“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – ...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …”

A government has no need for a constitutional right to arm itself but the citizenry absolutely do/does...tyrants and despots are proof of that and why they move to disarm the citizenry making resistance to their whims impossible.

 

[Rumpole]

The claim in my statement that 2a is an "inalienable right made clear by the constitution" is due to its inclusion in the constitution, as everything the framers included is an inalienable right...

The term 'inalienable' (or unalienable) is neither in the constitution nor the federalist papers. The constitution does allow for amendments, and the Supreme Court has declared that rights are not absolute.

In keeping with the sophomoric semantics of the moment the "DoI" does not say "inalienable" either, it says "unalienable"...yuck! I feel dirty for even playing along by addressing/mocking it.

The typo doesn't change my point.

And that is what is so dangerous...everything is on the table and open to arbitrational interpretation...would you vote for your own proposal if it were tied one curtailing free speech as well? btw "reasonable regulation" as it concerns freedom is an oxymoron...it is a subjective term designed to stick ones nose where it has no business.

How can the amendment process be dangerous? They made it difficult, but not impossible, as it should be. It was the work of wisdom.

No I did not mean dominate, the phrase is stated exactly as intended, it is a grammatically correct

No, because you use the term 'dominoes' as transitive verb, which is irregular. The term 'dominoes' is a plural noun. Used correctly in the intransitive, there is no verb case using the singular 'dominoes' because only a plurality of objects can domino, and 'dominoes the intent' is irregular.

short cut for 'once you go down that road the negative affect will be to watch the dominoes fall where the rest of our rights are concerned".

Now you are using the term correctly, or rather , it's more common usage, which you should have done in the first place.

It is the act/art of being concise through the "tight, taut, terse" method of speech, an economy of words...
from there the faux constitutionalist will cite past abuses of the constitution for further abuses on it

....the phrase also has the added benefit of letting me know if I'm dealing with an academic or the socially educated.

Okay, "dominoes' as a verb (you are using it as a transitive verb, which is irregular, given that, when it is used as a verb, it's normally used as intransitive verb, taking no object, but, I'll accept your coinage of the term) so you are basically giving us the slippery slope argument, which, by the way, is a logical fallacy.
See the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection kit.

No, you cleaned that for me, you found the flaw in my argument and switching the "u" and the "g" around at my expense fixes it...seems you may have just found your niche eh?

The above is completely irrelevant to the conversation...
...it is merely misdirection that pretends to addresses my point about civilian vs. the government control of the militia by explaining which part of the government state militia falls...
And claiming the above is the case, then citizens would be without arms and on their own.

"“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – ...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …”

A government has no need for a constitutional right to arm itself but the citizenry absolutely do/does...tyrants and despots are proof of that and why they move to disarm the citizenry making resistance to their whims impossible.

That's all fine and dandy but if you rise up against the government because, in your opinion, they are being tyrants, you will wind up in prison for insurrection/sedition, etc. Just ask the proud boys and the oath keepers, who are all convicted for sedition.

The point is, all this crap about 'need 2a to fight tyranny' sounds nice, but he Constitution considers such a thing as an insurrection and it spells out how to deal with it.

In the modern era, that argument is moot. It really is.

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

Those are two of the choices. The third choice is leave it alone.

Nobody has a right to commit murder. So, as usual, you’re wrong.

too many people have died because of your suggestion

Amend it. Do it and shut up about it.

 

[BackAgain]

too many people have died because of your suggestion

Amend it. Do it and shut up about it.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The term 'inalienable' (or unalienable) is neither in the constitution nor the federalist papers. The constitution does allow for amendments, and the Supreme Court has declared that rights are not absolute.

The typo doesn't change my point.

How can the amendment process be dangerous? They made it difficult, but not impossible, as it should be. It was the work of wisdom.

No, because you use the term 'dominoes' as transitive verb, which is irregular. The term 'dominoes' is a plural noun. Used correctly in the intransitive, there is no verb case using the singular 'dominoes' because only a plurality of objects can domino, and 'dominoes the intent' is irregular.


Now you are using the term correctly, or rather , it's more common usage, which you should have done in the first place.

Okay, "dominoes' as a verb (you are using it as a transitive verb, which is irregular, given that, when it is used as a verb, it's normally used as intransitive verb, taking no object, but, I'll accept your coinage of the term) so you are basically giving us the slippery slope argument, which, by the way, is a logical fallacy.
See the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection kit.


That's all fine and dandy but if you rise up against the government because, in your opinion, they are being tyrants, you will wind up in prison for insurrection/sedition, etc. Just ask the proud boys and the oath keepers, who are all convicted for sedition.

The point is, all this crap about 'need 2a to fight tyranny' sounds nice, but he Constitution considers such a thing as an insurrection and it spells out how to deal with it.

In the modern era, that argument is moot. It really is.

Well I'm convinced you're on the up and up about an amendment to the constitution as opposed to trying an end run with another useless gun control measure hidden in a faux constitutional argument...you made the right argument and stood by it with actual procedure...

I have seen far too many arguments like yours being used to push gun control and wasn't sure if you were running the same scam...
...using the amendment process is the way to tweak the constitution as time necessitates recalibration on most things...

...You did however misunderstand or just incorrectly interpret some of my points but you convinced me you got it right...

...I trust the process and as long as we follow it without a backdoor intent [gun control] so it would be a welcomed change to denounce gun control up front so as not to go through this type of argument/debate.

I have no problem with using the amendment process, but it should be kept in mind that 2a is also a red flag amendment and when you have lawmakers pushing gun control in lieu of the process that you advocate all kinds of bells and whistles should be going off.

 

[ralfy]

The RTBA is a natural right, which means it exists even without 2A.

It was used to justify the formation of state and regulated militia.

Eventually, the first was replaced by police, etc., and the second by the National Guard and others.

And mandatory service from the Militia Acts was replaced by mandatory registration with the possibility of conscription.

 

[justoffal]

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.

Tl;DR

 

[justoffal]

Well I'm convinced you're on the up and up about an amendment to the constitution as opposed to trying an end run with another useless gun control measure hidden in a faux constitutional argument...you made the right argument and stood by it with actual procedure...

I have seen far too many arguments like yours being used to push gun control and wasn't sure if you were running the same scam...
...using the amendment process is the way to tweak the constitution as time necessitates recalibration on most things...

...You did however misunderstand or just incorrectly interpret some of my points but you convinced me you got it right...

...I trust the process and as long as we follow it without a backdoor intent [gun control] so it would be a welcomed change to denounce gun control up front so as not to go through this type of argument/debate.

I have no problem with using the amendment process, but it should be kept in mind that 2a is also a red flag amendment and when you have lawmakers pushing gun control in lieu of the process that you advocate all kinds of bells and whistles should be going off.

It won't fix the basic problem of people. The idea that taking instruments out of the hands of evil people somehow makes them better people is a ridiculous notion. Simply put if you can't fix people you can't fix anything. Step up the death penalty. It's not perfect but it works.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It won't fix the basic problem of people. The idea that taking instruments out of the hands of evil people somehow makes them better people is a ridiculous notion. Simply put if you can't fix people you can't fix anything. Step up the death penalty. It's not perfect but it works.

As true as this may be my only concern was the integrity of the process which as was pointed out there is a proper way to rectify the problem instead of pretending "gun control" isn't about an end run around the constitution...I don't believe RUMP was trying to do that with his proposed solution, he seems to legitimately believe the process in place is the proper way to go...as a constitutionalist that is all that interests me.

 

[miketx]

Come get them, ya communist sob's!

 

[Papageorgio]

Has this gained any traction, the OP is claiming it’s time has come, yet I see nothing going on to amend the 2 amendment. probably because no politician is into political suicide.

 

[Oldestyle]

The reason that people are buying record numbers of guns at the moment is because they don't feel safe. What's going on with the Left's defund the Police movements and the abolishing of cash bails has made our streets extremely dangerous. People are buying guns because politicians aren't protecting them. Call 911 and see how long it is before someone responds.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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'm going to start with paragraph 3. The purpose of the Second Amendment was so that "the people/civilians" could form well-regulated militias to ensure that THEIR STATE could STAY FREE! Should a state government, no longer be a FREE STATE, it would then fall on its citizens to form regulated militias to fight an authoritarian, oppressive state government. Could such a thing happen by a local government? Indeed yes. Refer to what is called, "the Battle of Athens, Tennessee," in 1946, which involved multiple counties. Veterans rose up and fought a corrupt government. Could an authoritarian, oppressive government rise up in the US again? It already is, as Marxism grows from within.
As for the rest, I always keep in mind that there are over 300 million firearms owned by 90 million Americans. Of those 90 million firearms owners, they are almost ALL "law-abiding" people, veterans like me and others, who do not commit crimes with the weapons and thus are no threat to you or those you love.
If one looks at those committing most of the shootings, they are gang members and the weapons they use fall into the category of ghost guns (which can be made in a basement or garage), stolen firearms, or straw-purchased firearms. There are handgun suicides, however, a person dead set on killing themselves are going to accomplish it even if their guns are taken away and the vast majority of suicides don't involve harming others.
Another really small number of gun deaths are due to firearms ignorance and frankly, I have no problem with those wanting to purchase a firearm, having a one day safety class on purchase. Then there are the few mentally unstable, there will always be mentally unstable.
A person desiring to kill many doesn't need others, simply needs a knife, blunt instrument, or if wanting a high body count, simply drive into a crowd. In Nice, France, a terrorist determined to kill people, used the method of driving a truck into a crowd. He racked up 86 dead and 434 injured.
If you want a decline in the gun deaths, simply make the possession of a stolen or ghost gun, a major felony with a mandatory minimum sentence that would dissuade those considering using a stolen or ghost gun. Another thing to do, is stop electing "soft on crime" District Attorneys. The criminals themselves consider those cities that have such District Attorneys and by extension, the justice system a joke.

 

[Concerned American]

I'm going to start with paragraph 3. The purpose of the Second Amendment was so that "the people/civilians" could form well-regulated militias to ensure that THEIR STATE could STAY FREE! Should a state government, no longer be a FREE STATE, it would then fall on its citizens to form regulated militias to fight an authoritarian, oppressive state government. Could such a thing happen by a local government? Indeed yes. Refer to what is called, "the Battle of Athens, Tennessee," in 1946, which involved multiple counties. Veterans rose up and fought a corrupt government. Could an authoritarian, oppressive government rise up in the US again? It already is, as Marxism grows from within.
As for the rest, I always keep in mind that there are over 300 million firearms owned by 90 million Americans. Of those 90 million firearms owners, they are almost ALL "law-abiding" people, veterans like me and others, who do not commit crimes with the weapons and thus are no threat to you or those you love.
If one looks at those committing most of the shootings, they are gang members and the weapons they use fall into the category of ghost guns (which can be made in a basement or garage), stolen firearms, or straw-purchased firearms. There are handgun suicides, however, a person dead set on killing themselves are going to accomplish it even if their guns are taken away and the vast majority of suicides don't involve harming others.
Another really small number of gun deaths are due to firearms ignorance and frankly, I have no problem with those wanting to purchase a firearm, having a one day safety class on purchase. Then there are the few mentally unstable, there will always be mentally unstable.
A person desiring to kill many doesn't need others, simply needs a knife, blunt instrument, or if wanting a high body count, simply drive into a crowd. In Nice, France, a terrorist determined to kill people, used the method of driving a truck into a crowd. He racked up 86 dead and 434 injured.
If you want a decline in the gun deaths, simply make the possession of a stolen or ghost gun, a major felony with a mandatory minimum sentence that would dissuade those considering using a stolen or ghost gun. Another thing to do, is stop electing "soft on crime" District Attorneys. The criminals themselves consider those cities that have such District Attorneys and by extension, the justice system a joke.

And maybe just enforce laws that are already on the books--regardless of who it is and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Even if his last name is BIDEN.

 

[miketx]

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.

Come get them traitor.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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.

Basically, just follow developed countries gun laws, such as the UK, New Zealand, and Australia