Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[M14 Shooter]

Well, pretty clearly we do not. Most of the mass shootings of late have happened because the system failed to identify obvious lunatics.

It isn't necessarily illegal for "obvious lunatics" to have a gun.

The system does not function because death is the hottest commodity these days.

No.
The system does work because it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking another law.
That is, the failure is conceptual, not mechanical.

 

[hunarcy]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

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

The right belongs to the people, not just militia.

 

[Bern80]

This is probably the best explanation of the second amendment I've seen. Especially with regard to clarifying the distinction between people and militia. They are not the same thing. The militia is mentioned in one phrase while people in the next for a reason. If they meant for only the militia or even an unorganized 'militia' to be the only ones with guns they would have used the word militia again in the next phrase instead of people.

 

[petro]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

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

The right belongs to the people, not just militia.

Exactly, This is why the Anti-Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights ie. the first 10 Amendments were God given and inalienable rights of the People. I wonder if those arguing for a compromise of the 2nd Amendment would be willing to compromise on the 1st. There are plenty of mentally unstable folks spouting ill prepared arguments in positions of power, we could start there. Congress and the POTUS come to mind.

 

[xotoxi]

God granted Americans the right to own guns.

It was carved into the stone tablets with all the Ten Amendment that George Washington found at the base of a burning cherry tree and brought down from Mount Vernon.

 

[12icer]

the left ALWAYS gives FALSE numbers in their rants against guns I read one post that placed the number at 38,000 that may well be TOTAL MURDERS, I have not seen a number even close to that in MANY years. Now as to reasons for the MASSIVE INCREASE in mass murders since 2008, Now what major thing changed then, and how did it change? Reverse that change, and have your solution. even a dog knows how to back out of something that causes harm liberals are not that smart though, they think if you keep dropping a rock on your head, it will stop hurting eventually. You know they are right but in a strange way it does quit when you find a big enough rock.

 

[luosT_tcR]

Guns are Bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public, when you talk about the right to bear arms, yes you have the right to bear arms, thus if you were to speak out against the government or a wealthy person, they are not allowed to chop off your arms to make an example out of you, they are only allow to chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm......... thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Guns are Bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public, when you talk about the right to bear arms, yes you have the right to bear arms, thus if you were to speak out against the government or a wealthy person, they are not allowed to chop off your arms to make an example out of you, they are only allow to chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm......... thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have.

Thanks for the nonsense.
Now, head back out to the playground - I understand there's a spot open in the sandbox.

 

[12icer]

CP, from luosT_tcr "thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have".

We pay for EVERYTHING the government has, Why shouldn't we be able to have anything IT does if we are law abiding taxpaying citizens? You miss the POINT of the second amendment. Because of the liberal edit of history leaving out so much of the REAL forming of this country, and the text and letters of the founding fathers to be "Unbiased" ( BULLSHIT). You and anyone with the ideas you have about the second, and first I'm sure, amendment is woefully lacking REAL FACTUAL based education in their target protections, and why they were written into the Bill of Rights.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Guns are Bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public, when you talk about the right to bear arms, yes you have the right to bear arms, thus if you were to speak out against the government or a wealthy person, they are not allowed to chop off your arms to make an example out of you, they are only allow to chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm......... thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have.

Thanks for the nonsense.
Now, head back out to the playground - I understand there's a spot open in the sandbox.

They probably kicked him out of the playground for scaring the other children.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Guns are Bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public, when you talk about the right to bear arms, yes you have the right to bear arms, thus if you were to speak out against the government or a wealthy person, they are not allowed to chop off your arms to make an example out of you, they are only allow to chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm......... thus the right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry as the current population of American Sheeple have.

Terrific. Because this board so badly needed another drooling ignoramus who thinks he's fiendishly clever. Welcome, drooling ignoramus. Now pipe down.

 

[saveliberty]

Compromise? Would that be Obama style compromise or real compromise? Doesn't really matter, because Constitutional rights are not suppose to be temporary or subject to tyranny by the government. So, no to compromise.

 

[12icer]

Liberals do not want to compromise, OR to have a discussion, the gun thing to them is like the race thing. When they say "Let's have a meaningful discussion" about either. It means LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO!!!!, and we will shout you down or talk over you if you have any valid point.

 

[MDiver]

NOpe.

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

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

I am.

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

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

Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people." I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal. Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.

 

[ChrisL]

NOpe.

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

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

I am.

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

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

Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people." I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal. Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals do not want to compromise, OR to have a discussion, the gun thing to them is like the race thing. When they say "Let's have a meaningful discussion" about either. It means LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO!!!!, and we will shout you down or talk over you if you have any valid point.

And "compromise" to them always means "You give us everything we want, and we'll tell you how grateful you should be".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Liberals do not want to compromise, OR to have a discussion, the gun thing to them is like the race thing. When they say "Let's have a meaningful discussion" about either. It means LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO!!!!, and we will shout you down or talk over you if you have any valid point.

Let's put the 2nd amendment as you want it worded:

Your own Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

But it reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

There is nothing regulated if you only have your approved Militias. The Black Panthers are now openly carrying and there is quite a bit of crying over that. Does it mean only WASPs of good standings have the right to be armed?

 

[MDiver]

NOpe.

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

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

I am.

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

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

Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people." I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal. Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.

The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia. Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership. I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

NOpe.

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

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

I am.

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

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

Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people." I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal. Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.

The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia. Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership. I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.

The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here. All Hardcore Republicans. Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons. One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box. With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them. Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons. You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.

Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them. But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.

All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws. If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.

Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[Correll]

NOpe.

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

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

I am.

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

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

Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people." I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal. Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.

The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia. Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership. I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.

Actually that is what Pedro was saying and I was very much disagreeing with him.

The nested quotes can be confusing.