What would you do with the second amendment?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations

Sounds like you have a desire to infringe.

Background Checks, Registration, required training, licensing.......it is what our founders wanted

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary.

Yes it is clear what is necessary

A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state

Well regulated militias need to register their members, train them, know what kind of weapons their members carry

Since when did you start making regulations for a militia?

 

[Kondor3]

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Section 1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Section 3: Regulation of arms shall not constitute an infringement of this right.

Section 4: Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.

 

[Pilot1]

We already have 22,000 gun control laws, many of which are neither reasonable, nor sensible, and most are unconstitutional.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Even the courts dont [sic] agree with you. Nothing prevents government from regulating guns

Only lawlessness and corruption allows the courts and other parts of government to get away with blatantly perverting and violating the Constitution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Section 1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Section 3: Regulation of arms shall not constitute an infringement of this right.

Section 4: Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.

Good luck getting that ratified. It contradicts itself. Sections 2 and 3 are irreconcilable with each other. If the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that is not to be infringed, then government cannot regulate the manufacture, sale, possession, or carrying of arms without infringing that right.

Either the people have this right, and government is forbidden from infringing it, or else government has the authority to infringe this right. You cannot have it both ways, and you only reveal your blatant dishonesty and doublethink by trying to claim that you can.

You might just as well try to ratify an amendment that declares that two plus two equals ten.

 

[Contumacious]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

The 2A merely emphasizes that we have a right to bear arms to defend our lives and property.

IT IS NOT A GRANT OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY.


..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations

As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, every single one of your so-called “sensible gun regulations” is blatantly unconstitutional and illegal. But then that sort of lawlessness and corruption is exactly what your side is all about.

Is preventing felons from owning guns unconstitutional?

Is preventing people from owning anti-aircraft ordinance unconstitutional?

Is preventing people from easily purchasing grenades unconstitutional?

Are background checks unconstitutional?

People love to throw out the whole "shall not be infringed" line, but in reality its already been infringed upon. The only question is was it reasonable. Republicans seem to have drawn a line in sand and declared that what we have now is an acceptable amount of infringement. But any more infringement, no matter how small or reasonable, is tantamount to confiscating guns.

It depends. Who's doing the preventing or the background checks in your hypothetical scenarios?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sounds like you have a desire to infringe.

Background Checks, Registration, required training, licensing.......it is what our founders wanted

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary.

Yes it is clear what is necessary

A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state

Well regulated militias need to register their members, train them, know what kind of weapons their members carry

Read it in the context of the era... you Might learn something for once.

The context of well regulated hasn’t changed

Well regulated has never meant a bunch of gun nuts running around

Except for that whole Revolutionary War thing.

 

[Pop23]

Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations

As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, every single one of your so-called “sensible gun regulations” is blatantly unconstitutional and illegal. But then that sort of lawlessness and corruption is exactly what your side is all about.

Is preventing felons from owning guns unconstitutional?

Is preventing people from owning anti-aircraft ordinance unconstitutional?

Is preventing people from easily purchasing grenades unconstitutional?

Are background checks unconstitutional?

People love to throw out the whole "shall not be infringed" line, but in reality its already been infringed upon. The only question is was it reasonable. Republicans seem to have drawn a line in sand and declared that what we have now is an acceptable amount of infringement. But any more infringement, no matter how small or reasonable, is tantamount to confiscating guns.

Felons give up their rights when they commit felonies. They made the choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

If one ‘follows’ the Second Amendment, neither most nor all firearm regulatory measures would be ‘un-Constitutional.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

As with other rights, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to regulate and place restrictions on those rights, reflecting the will of the people, provided those regulations and restrictions comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Consequently, nothing needs to be ‘done’ with the Second Amendment; its case law is in its infancy, still evolving, still subject to the crucible of the political process and the judicial process; lawmakers and the courts will continue the process of creating Second Amendment case law.

Indeed, it could be another 50 years before we have a comprehensive understanding as to the meaning of the Amendment, what regulatory measures are Constitutional, and what regulatory measures are not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Restrictions on guns should be as limited as the restrictions on free speech

Sorry, false comparison fallacy.

Regulatory measures seeking to place limits and restriction on First Amendment rights are subject to the highest level of judicial review: strict scrutiny; that’s not the case with Second Amendment rights.

The courts will need to start subjecting firearm regulatory measures to the same level of judicial review as they do limitations on speech – which they are currently not inclined to do.

It will likely take a Supreme Court ruling to compel the lower courts to subject firearm regulatory measures to a heightened level of judicial review.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The meaning is clear so all gun laws are unconstitutional. That said, absent incorporation progressives would be constitutionally free to attempt to ban guns at the state level. But since they insist everything be a federal issue they have no leg to stand on.

Regardless of the Constitution, however, people have the right to defend themselves.

Nonsense.

The meaning is clear as expressed by the Heller and McDonald Courts: the Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense unconnected with militia service.

Measures seeking to ban handguns are un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

Moreover, state and local governments are subject to Second Amendment case law.

Again, all gun laws are not ‘un-Constitutional’ if they comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

The 2A merely emphasizes that we have a right to bear arms to defend our lives and property.

IT IS NOT A GRANT OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY.


..

Wrong.

And if you disagree with the fact that government has the authority to regulate firearms, you’re at liberty to express your displeasure with the Supreme Court’s conservatives.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The amount of things Dems could actually accomplish if they gave up Gun Control, their love affair with MS-13 and Islamic Jihadists and LGBTQ confused people who insist on using the little's girl bathroom.

I mean damn...don't tell them that's how to do it.

 

[Pop23]

Restrictions on guns should be as limited as the restrictions on free speech

Sorry, false comparison fallacy.

Regulatory measures seeking to place limits and restriction on First Amendment rights are subject to the highest level of judicial review: strict scrutiny; that’s not the case with Second Amendment rights.

The courts will need to start subjecting firearm regulatory measures to the same level of judicial review as they do limitations on speech – which they are currently not inclined to do.

It will likely take a Supreme Court ruling to compel the lower courts to subject firearm regulatory measures to a heightened level of judicial review.

And just why is the first somehow more protected then the first?

Please explain.

 

[crazyme]

enforce a well regulated Militia

What is a Militia?

Definition of militia
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

• Themilitia was called to quell the riot.

: a body of citizens organized for military service
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Definition of MILITIA


noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called outperiodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typicallyregarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against thepresumed interference of the federal government.

the definition of militia

But what good are arms in a place where you don't need them, is what some believe...

 

[Little-Acorn]

Results so far:

1. Repeal it and replace it with an amendment banning all guns in private hands: 1 vote 2.7%
2. Repeal it and give Congress unlimited power over regulating guns, including banning them 0 votes 0.0%
3. Give States the power to decide what their gun rights and restrictions should be 1 vote 2.7%
4. Leave it, Congress already regulates guns, but they should not have the power to ban them 3 votes 8.1%
5. Follow the second amendment and declare most or all current gun regulations Unconstitutional 32 votes 86.5%

An overwhelming preference for the truth? In USMB????? Never would have expected that.

 

[2aguy]

Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations

Sounds like you have a desire to infringe.

Background Checks, Registration, required training, licensing.......it is what our founders wanted

No...the Founders didn't want any of that.

Background checks.....don't stop criminals or mass shooters. Universal Background checks will end in registration of guns...

Registration...unConstitutional...Haynes v United States ruled that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns...therefore, normal, law abiding gun owners do not have to register their legal guns

Required training....un Constitutional the same way that Literacy Tests were declared unConstitutional when democrats used them to keep black Americans from voting.

Licensing, unnecessary......criminals can't buy, own or carry guns so they can't get a license in the first place. Mass shooters will simply get a license. Also, unConstitutional if you charge any fee....that would be the same as Poll Tax for voting. We don't need a license, since law abiding people can legally own and carry guns. If you are stopped by the police and they find you with a gun, they run your name for felony convictions, if you don't pop up on that, they have no reason to hassle you. If you do...you can already be arrested. See, no reason for a license other than to make owning a gun more expensive and to put law abiding gun owners in legal peril....

 

[2aguy]

Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations

As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, every single one of your so-called “sensible gun regulations” is blatantly unconstitutional and illegal. But then that sort of lawlessness and corruption is exactly what your side is all about.

Afraid they are not

Even the courts dont agree with you. Nothing prevents government from regulating guns

The Constitution does...that they ignore it doesn't make it legal.

 

[2aguy]

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Section 1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Section 3: Regulation of arms shall not constitute an infringement of this right.

Section 4: Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.

2 is cancelled by 3..... it makes no sense.