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

[Meister]

That really worked out for the Earps, didn't it?

Virgil shot from ambush and maimed, Morgan shot from behind, and killed.

Not allowing firearms to be carried in town didn't seem to stop criminals, did it?

As it is today in the 'gun free zones'.

 

[Bell Huey]

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 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.

Not really concerned about it. Getting 2/3s of congress or 38 states to agree to it won't happen. Not any time soon,

 

[Mac-7]

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.

The National Guard is commanded by the government

Which the 2nd exists to defend against

 

[Meister]

The National Guard is commanded by the government

Which the 2nd exists to defend against

BINGO

 

[Donald H]

The Wild west had stricter gun control laws than we have today.

NRA Stick this where the sun don't shine!!!

No gun control measures are going to help make a difference. In fact, all attempts are going to cause more anger and likely more police violence to make their point.

America's culture of continuous wars must change. The nearly settled outcome of the war against Russia could even escalate the violence on account of no satisfactory results for America coming out of the resolution forced on the Ukraine.

Something that could start to make a difference in the short term is looking closely at the reasons the mass shooters were motivated to violence. Already the last one that was related to a church, is being swept under the carpet

 

[HeyNorm]

I read to the part of single shot bolt action rifle for self defense then, after gathering myself after laughing my ass off, knew the op was a loon.

Here’s an idea, why don’t you propose something that removes guns from the bad guys and leave the rest of us out of your fantasies?

 

[marvin martian]

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.

Get your fascist hands off my civil rights.

 

[marvin martian]

No gun control measures are going to help make a difference. In fact, all attempts are going to cause more anger and likely more police violence to make their point.

America's culture of continuous wars must change. The nearly settled outcome of the war against Russia could even escalate the violence on account of no satisfactory results for America coming out of the resolution forced on the Ukraine.

Something that could start to make a difference in the short term is looking closely at the reasons the mass shooters were motivated to violence. Already the last one that was related to a church, is being swept under the carpet

God forbid we end up like Canada, where the fascist government is pushing euthanasia on children, and the population is too scared to do anything about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

*So, ladies and gentlemen, "fire away" (with your affirmations, discussions, and debate/counter arguments. Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun ).
Humbly tendered,

Had to take you off ignore, just so I could say:
This nonsense - again?
You didn't get beaten enough when your alter-ego tried this on that other board?

- Unnecessary
- Ineffective
- Never happen
Thus
Useless suggestion
/ thread

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yours truly and none other. Just starting the conversation -- planting a seed. That's all.

What is the wording of your proposed amendment?

 

[Meister]

God forbid we end up like Canada, where the fascist government is pushing euthanasia on children, and the population is too scared to do anything about it.

It's for the greater cause, Marvin.

Just like law abiding citizens giving up their guns.
Everyone knows that only the criminals will have them, and its just a calculated risk....for the greater cause.
You know....the price for getting the guns out of the hands of 'We the People'.
Can you imagine if that ever happened how compliant we would have to become in this utopia world?

 

[Mac-7]

after gathering myself after laughing my ass off, knew the op was a loon.

Agreed

 

[M14 Shooter]

No gun control measures are going to help make a difference. In fact, all attempts are going to cause more anger and likely more police violence to make their point.

America's culture of continuous wars must change. The nearly settled outcome of the war against Russia could even escalate the violence on account of no satisfactory results for America coming out of the resolution forced on the Ukraine.

Something that could start to make a difference in the short term is looking closely at the reasons the mass shooters were motivated to violence. Already the last one that was related to a church, is being swept under the carpet

So many words, and yet they say nothing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here’s an idea, why don’t you propose something that removes guns from the bad guys and leave the rest of us out of your fantasies?

Simple:
Like all the other anti-gun trogs, he believes the state should have a monopoly on force; he knows this cannot happen so long as the ciizenry remains armed.
Thus, gun control..

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yours truly and none other. Just starting the conversation -- planting a seed. That's all.

Stirring a shit pot with something that will never happen! That is what you have accomplished. Amending the 2nd Amendment is not possible constitutionally. The second would have to be repealed and a new gun rights amendment passed. That will never happen unless mass psychosis is pandemic in our nation.

 

[Rumpole]

Shall not infringe requires no nuance.

An amendment to 2A renders your point moot. Amendments are allowed per the US Constitution.

The only seeds OP is planting are tyrannical.

Not at all, points raised which you have not adequately addressed, let alone refuted.

 

[Rumpole]

View attachment 773060 Hitler agrees with Rumphole .

If you had read the OP there is no suggestion to disarm the populace, none whatsoever.

 

[Auld Phart]

An amendment to 2A renders your point moot. Amendments are allowed per the US Constitution.

Not at all, points raised which you have not adequately addressed, let alone refuted.

Amendments are allowed per the US Constitution.

after a LOT of red tape.

Not likely to happen.

 

[Flash]

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 was thinking of the best way to respond to your stupidity.

The best I can come up with that adequately addresses your confusion about Liberty in this country is "fuck you Moon Bat".

If you don't like the Bill of Rights then move to another country.

If you don't like the fact that the US has a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms then move to a country where it is a privileged handed out by deranged government bureaucrats.

May I suggest Canada? That way you won't have to learn a foreign language unless you move to Montreal.

 

[Rumpole]

That seed is infertile. Address the real problem--the attempted political advancement and normalization of mental illness. Mental illness is the primary cause of mass fatalities, not firearms. Numerous bombings throughout the country with far more devastating numbers of dead attest to this fact.

The issue is relatively similar for the licensing and regulation of automobiles, noting that we cannot merely license the 'incompetent', because the only way to find who is incompetent is to test each and every applicant. Now, with mentally ill, there are data bases, but not all mentally ill are accounted for, until it's too late. Moreover, the amendment recommended won't prevent a state like FLA to enact it's (in my opinion) insane policy of permitless conceal and carry, but it allows states that do want stricter regulations, to allow them to do it--the amendment I propose grants states more freedom to regulate as they see fit. If you are unhappy with California, you are free to vote for officials who think as you do, or move to Florida, that sort of thing.