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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Though I am in accord with your view, the only intent of the OP is to plant the seed of an idea, in the hope that, over time, it will root, grow, and achieve fruition, and of course, that will take time. Of course, it may never take root but I remain, always, an optimist.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Rumpole, as just about everyone has shown, your :seed of an idea" is a non-starter. It cannot and will not ever be considered.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

*Caveat: rude comments, "TLDL" comments, snarky and lazy retorts, disingenuous comments, ad nauseum, will be ignored.

Lets' apply that to the OP itself.

You do understand, don't you, what it takes to amend the Constitution?

And do you also understand that a very solid portion of the American people, if not the majority, like the Second Amendment exactly as it is? Certainly, enough of us to insure that any effort to ratify a new amendment to undermine it will fail spectacularly.

Amending the Constitution in order to undermine the Second Amendment simply is not going to happen.

Your side is left with cravenly and corruptibly stripping Americans of this essential right in violation of the Constitution. You never have, and never will, be able to do what it takes to enact any legitimate gun control law. Only through cheating and corruption have you ever been, or ever will be able to attack and undermine this right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes…..you are a fascist….

The National Guard is Federalized whenever the federal government wants to use it…..

Bolt action rifles?

Yes…you are a fascist……an honest one, but still a fascist.

The cities where the democrats are in total control already have extreme gun control….and their cities are driving our gun murder rate…..you doofus……

And Heller, Caetano, Mcdonand,and now Bruen explain how dumb your proposals are historically, And Constitutionally….

History also shows that countries that have given up their guns eventually end up with mass murder….Europe, Russia, China, Cambodia……and you twits never, ever grasp this……,,which is why we don’t take you seriously but we do take your madness seriously because it always ends in mass graves and murder…..after you take the guns…

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Shall not infringe requires no nuance.

To be fair to Rumpole[stiltskin], what he is proposing is to amend the Constitution, which is the only way that any legitimate infringements could ever be enacted against the people's right to keep and bear arms. As long as the Second Amendment stands, all gun control laws are illegal, and every act of enacting, enforcing and upholding them is an act of corruption, and a crime against the Constitution itself.

The only way to change this is to amend the Constitution, to overturn the Second Amendment, and that is what Rumpole[stiltskin] is proposing. But he seems to have no sense whatsoever of the impossibility of achieving that, against the will of a people that for the most part, support the Second Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office.

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg
-

YOu don't know what you are talking about....

Do you understand that in gun controlled Tombstone, one Earp was murdered, and another maimed, by criminals using illegal guns?

Do you understand that Doc Holiday and the Cowboys gang routinely ignored the law? And carried guns freely in the town?

you idiot...

Most of the gun control laws in the Old West, if they existed at all, had nothing to do with confiscation or restrictions on gun type. They had more to do with gun use by restricting and prohibiting firing pistols in city streets. And, while few opponents of gun control today would object to limitations on discharging firearms in a busy intersection, gun control laws of this extent were largely unheard of in most American cities. In fact, they were even unusual in the Old West, and using the gun control ordinance from Tombstone as an example, they were proven ineffective.
-----

There were other frontier towns with gun control restrictions similar to Tombstone. Most made it unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person any deadly weapon within the limits of said city, without first obtaining a permit in writing. But, in those towns, as in Tombstone, in the closest equivalents to a “gun-free zone” in the 19th century, such gun control measures did little to stem gun violence, and likely provoked the infamous kerfuffle at the O.K. Corral.
----

Lots of guns, not a lot of crime​

Mass violence, like what took place at the O.K. Corral, was actually infrequent. Moreover, the Old West reputation for lawlessness is unwarranted, despite, at times, an elevated number of homicides.

Crime such as rape and robberies occurred at a much lower rate than in modern America — certainly lower than in the 1970s and 1980s, when the nation was wracked by a surge in criminality. It is also worth noting that crime and gun violence has fallen steeply since the 1990s, even as gun ownership has increased dramatically.


https://medium.com/@chipschweiger/history-of-the-american-west-the-reality-of-guns-and-the-wild-west-151af6e0a055

 

[2aguy]

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

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

In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office.

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg
-

And more.....

The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

Second, the idea that “Gun control laws were ubiquitous” in the 19th century is the work of politically motivated historians who cobble together every minor local restriction they can find in an attempt to create the impression that gun control was the norm. If this were true, Kristof wouldn’t need to jump to 1879 to offer his first specific case.

Visitors to Wichita, Kan., had to check their revolvers at police headquarters. As for Dodge City, a symbol of the Wild West, a photo shows a sign on main street in 1879 warning: “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.”


This talking point has been trotted out for years because it’s the closest thing anyone can find to resemble gun control in the Old West — a picture. But we don’t even know how rigidly the law was enforced, for how long, or if ever. We certainly don’t know that the guns were dropped off at “police headquarters.”

Dodge City-type ordinances—and those of some other towns—typically applied to the areas north of the “deadline,” which was the railroad tracks and a kind of red-light district. By 1879, Dodge City had nearly 20 businesses licensed to sell liquor and many whorehouses teeming with intoxicated young men. It was reasonable that these businesses wouldn’t want armed men with revolvers packed into their establishments.


However, the men voluntarily abandoned their weapons in exchange for entertainment and drink—just as they do today when entering establishments that prohibit the carrying of firearms. Those weapons were handed back to them when they were done. Not in their wildest imaginations would they have entertained the notion of asking the government for permission—getting a license or undergoing a background check—to own a firearm.

In the rest of the city, as with almost every city in the West, guns were allowed, and people walked around with them freely and openly. They bought them freely and openly. Even children could buy them. A man could buy a Colt or Remington or Winchester, and he could buy as many as he liked without anyone taking notice.


The fact is that in the 19th century there were no statewide or territory-wide gun control laws for citizens, and certainly no federal laws. Nor was there a single case challenging the idea of the individual right of gun ownership. Guns were romanticized in the literature and art, and the era’s greatest engineers designed and sold them. All the while, American leaders continued to praise the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny.

Those who praised this right, incidentally, include numerous post-Civil War civil rights activists, who offered particularly powerful arguments for the importance of the Second Amendment. Most gun-control regulations that did exist, after all, were used for subjugating blacks and Indians.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office.

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg
-

The actual story of the complete failure of gun control in Tombstone...with the death of one Earp and the maiming of another...by criminals with guns....and an appearance by Doc Holiday as he ignored the law over and over....

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman’s office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.) But these cowboys had no intention of doing so as they strolled around town with Colt revolvers and Winchester rifles in plain sight. Earlier on this fateful day, Virgil had disarmed one cowboy forcefully, while Wyatt confronted another and county sheriff Johnny Behan failed to persuade two more to turn in their firearms.
When the Earps and Holliday met the cowboys on Fremont Street in the early afternoon, Virgil once again called on them to disarm. Nobody knows who fired first. Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne, who were unarmed, ran at the start of the fight and survived. Billy Clanton and the McLaury brothers, who stood and fought, were killed by the lawmen, all of whom walked away.
Read more: Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Subscribe to Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

3/8/18

Gun Control, 1881

The ordinance, in this case at least, proved to be almost entirely ineffective. As recounted in the court decision, Sheriff Behan had “demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and … they ‘demurred,’ as he said, and did not do it.”
------------
This reliance is misplaced. A brief filed by historians and legal scholars explains that nineteenth-century prohibitions like the one in Tombstone were “unusual” and imposed “in response to transitory conditions.” Any “supposed distinction between populated and unpopulated areas, offered to justify heavy restrictions on carrying in the District, is not supported by the existence of handgun carry bans in a handful of mostly small towns in the Wild West, when nearly all major cities had no such laws.”
3/5/18

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...yth-effective-wild-west-gun-control-exploded/
============


Here you go...read up on the actual Tombstone situation and how the criminals actually ignored the gun control laws....killing land wounding the Earps....


Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'...

------

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.

--------

Tom McLaury's concealed weapon[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190

--------

Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges
Hmmmmmmmm...doesn't seem like the Tombstone gun control laws worked so far...

Virgil initially avoided a confrontation with the newly arrived Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton, who had not yet deposited their weapons at a hotel or stable as the law required.

------------

At about 2:30 pm he saw Ike, Frank, Tom, and Billy gathered off Fremont street. Behan attempted to persuade Frank McLaury to give up his weapons, but Frank insisted that he would only give up his guns after City Marshal Virgil Earp and his brothers were disarmed.[81]

-----------
Citizens reported to Virgil on the Cowboys' movements that Ike and Tom had left their livery stable and returned to town while armed, in violation of the city ordinance.

Gun control only works for those who will obey the laws...law abiding citizens....so any gun control will completely fail at disarming criminals and mass shooters.

 

[2aguy]

As Rumpole suggests, it's not possible and it would make no difference anyway.

The issue that must be addressed is America's culture of violence, continuous wars, and killing. The many millions of guns lying around only facilitate the culture.

Micheal Moore had this pinned down years ago with his 'Bowling for Columbine'. America has decided that accepting the guilt is not worth the lives of the school children or innocent citizens.

Can anybody accept the blame and make Rumpole's efforts worthwhile?

Dipshit.....Michael moore lied in Bowling For Columbine........he lied throughout the entire movie......and idiots like you sucked it up...

 

[2aguy]

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.

Europe did exactly what you are pushing here...they did it across Europe in the 1920s citing the exact things you do.....that surrendering and registering guns would make society a safer place....what they failed to realize is it made Europe safer for mass murder and genocide....

In just 6 years...1939-1945 the European socialists and the governments they controlled murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children....not war dead...these people were rounded up and marched into forests and camps and murdered....

15 million people.....in 6 years....

If you take a count of American gun murder for our entire 246 year history....what do you get?

About 2,460,000 million......in 246 years....

And the vast majority of those dead are not innocent men, women and children, they are criminals....and the friends and family they put in the way of their violence.....

So you want us to surrender our guns on the honor code of history? A history of murder and genocide of unarmed people?

You truly are a fool....

 

[Compost]

To be fair to Rumpole[stiltskin], what he is proposing is to amend the Constitution, which is the only way that any legitimate infringements could ever be enacted against the people's right to keep and bear arms. As long as the Second Amendment stands, all gun control laws are illegal, and every act of enacting, enforcing and upholding them is an act of corruption, and a crime against the Constitution itself.

The only way to change this is to amend the Constitution, to overturn the Second Amendment, and that is what Rumpole[stiltskin] is proposing. But he seems to have no sense whatsoever of the impossibility of achieving that, against the will of a people that for the most part, support the Second Amendment.

Yeah. If you had read all my remarks, you would have found that's pretty much what I said.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

No American of any worth gives a shit what a brainwashed slave/subject of Canaduh thinks about how we should run our country.

During the trucker protests a year or two ago, we Americans watched aghast, as your government an your people very vividly demonstrated why a free people need to be armed; and why tyrants prefer the people to be disarmed.

Who can forget the image, broadcast all over the world, of an elderly lady being trampled to death by your RCMP thugs on horseback?

Even in China, during the Tiananmen Square kerfuffle, a lone man was famously able to block a column of tanks, by standing in the way. But in Canaduh, your government's thugs thought nothing of trampling an old lady under the hooves of their horses.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

Many of us figured that out not long after this caulk bucket first appeared and started posting on this forum.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

What other country wants our losers and rejects?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no Constitution article which allows amending an amendment. See the 18th and 21st Amendments regarding prohibition.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

The eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments demonstrate the precedent by which an amendment to the Constitution can be overturned—the only instance in our country's entire history in which it was done.

If the national will existed strongly enough to do so, the Second Amendment could be overturned by ratifying a new amendment to that purpose, just as the Eighteenth Amendment was overturned by the Twenty-Second Amendment.

But it's not going to happen. Not in my lifetime, at least. There are too many of us who like the Second Amendment as it is, and wish that it were fully obeyed by our corrupt government; enough of us who would absolutely oppose any effort to overturn or undermine it, to insure that doing so will not happen.

I say that it would be easier to get a new amendment ratified to reinforce the Second, to impose harsh criminal penalties on any corrupt public servants who act in any way to violate or undermine the Second Amendment, than to get an amendment passed that itself undermines the Second Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I appreciate your passion for the topic and understand that the issue of gun rights can evoke strong emotions. However, I believe that we can engage in a respectful and constructive conversation about the matter without resorting to name-calling or offensive language.

You're trying to undermine one of our most essential Constitutional rights. This does not earn you any respect or politeness.

Fuck you, you anti-American piece of shit.

 

[2aguy]

You're trying to undermine one of our most essential Constitutional rights. This does not earn you any respect or politeness.

Fuck you, you anti-American piece of shit.

Yep…I used to treat posters like him with the respect you give to a normal person in society….,,but after a few decades of dealing with them…they are either foolishly stupid, or just plain evil….

So no respect is due for them…

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yep…I used to treat posters like him with the respect you give to a normal person in society….,,but after a few decades of dealing with them…they are either foolishly stupid, or just plain evil….

So no respect is due for them…

I have nothing against good manners, in general.

But too often, a polite manner is cover for very sinister intentions.

Give me a man who is rude and crass and ill-manners, who tells the truth, and I will always choose him over a polite snake that lies to us in order to rob us of our freedoms. Rumpole[stiltskin] is clearly an example of the latter.

Fuck him, and fuck every creature like him. And I mean this in the rudest, crassest, most disrespectful, but most truthful way.

 

[Rumpole]

Lets' apply that to the OP itself.

You do understand, don't you, what it takes to amend the Constitution?

And do you also understand that a very solid portion of the American people, if not the majority, like the Second Amendment exactly as it is? Certainly, enough of us to insure that any effort to ratify a new amendment to undermine it will fail spectacularly.

Amending the Constitution in order to undermine the Second Amendment simply is not going to happen.

Your side is left with cravenly and corruptibly stripping Americans of this essential right in violation of the Constitution. You never have, and never will, be able to do what it takes to enact any legitimate gun control law. Only through cheating and corruption have you ever been, or ever will be able to attack and undermine this right.

Hi, Bob,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the proposal to amend the Second Amendment. I understand that amending the Constitution is a complex and challenging process that requires significant support from the American people. However, the intention of the OP is not to undermine the Second Amendment, but rather to foster a conversation about potential ways to address the issue of gun violence while still respecting individual rights.

I acknowledge that there is a substantial portion of the population that strongly supports the Second Amendment in its current form. Nevertheless, as a society, it is important to engage in constructive dialogue about the issues we face, and to consider various perspectives and solutions. The "2A v.2" proposal is merely one idea, meant to serve as a starting point for discussions on how we might strike a balance between individual rights and public safety.

It is worth noting that history has shown us that the Constitution can evolve over time, with amendments serving to adapt the document to changing societal needs and values. While the process of amending the Constitution is deliberately difficult, it is not impossible, and has been successfully done 27 times in the past.

In conclusion, I appreciate your concern regarding the challenges of amending the Constitution and the strong support for the Second Amendment in its current form. The purpose of this essay is not to undermine the Second Amendment, but rather to encourage thoughtful conversation and exploration of potential solutions to the issue of gun violence in the United States, while respecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

Rumpole, as just about everyone has shown, your :seed of an idea" is a non-starter. It cannot and will not ever be considered.

Interesting thought, ART, but sometimes one has to toss a handful of seeds, perhaps a bucket in tough weather, for one or two to take root. This is only but one seed tossed, today.

Cheers,
Rumpole