Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Celsuis]

Mushy, you've misinterpreted the whole point of my post.

I was saying that if the liberty to bear firearms be recognized, so ought be the liberty to bear melée and blunt weapons.

And no, I don't think that the liberty to bear arms is absolute; as with any other liberty, it is subject to restriction and interpretation by legislation, which the Congress of the USA have, from time to time, enacted as statutory law.

If it were up to me, I'd strike it down for bad drafting.

______________

If someone read it to me...

Reader: ''''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State-''

Me: STOP... STOP READING! We have to rewrite it. That's a blatant falsehood. It is NOT necessary, we've already hit Nonsense, its struck down. The Amendment won't be given effect at all because half of it states a blatant falsehood as a fact.

________________

Then if the people or some leader really wants to amend the Constitution again to add something that makes cohesive sense by itself, we can go from there (if they can't agree on a new wording, then we don't need it anymore).

Here's one example where it can be logically drafted:

''Subject to interpretation by the courts in consideration of other Amendments to the Constitution, there shall be a limited right by American citizens to enjoy the freedom to possess and use firearms. This right can be modified within constitutional bounds by the legislature so long as it is justifiable by principles that are in concordance with the spirit of American democracy.''

See, its not so hard.

Then they have carte blanche to do whatever they want from there except outright get rid of the right.

Courts will have a field day doing whatever they want to make it work in today's society and we can dispense with this whole nonsensical debate about what the Founding Fathers intended.

It doesn't even matter. If they can't write proper laws and are so bad with words then why should we care what they wanted? If the provision at face value is Nonsense, it should be treated as such.

I read this and felt an immense obligation to respond. Regarding your opinion that the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a falsehood, I have to firmly disagree. The founders of the United States, recognizing that any state, no matter how powerful, would never be able to permanently secure our natural rights, recognized the necessity of each citizen of bear arms necessary for their own defense and the defense of their liberties. They knew that the common citizenry (the militia), well trained and armed (well regulated) would be necessary for the security of a free State as it would be impossible for any invading army, foreign or domestic, to defeat the will and the mass of the people. For this reason, this clause also justifies (it is a justifying clause), the next clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Recognizing the continuously changing nature of the world and the inventions that were constantly created, the founders recognized the unrestricted right of every citizen (and every individual, for that matter) to bear any arms whatsoever necessary for their protection. The founders recognized that it would be necessary for the citizens of the new nation to be armed as well as, or possibly even better than, the military of its own country, because in times of crisis, only the people could truly ensure the preservation of the nation and their liberties.

[Fartsniffage]

Okay. But now were just back to talking about other amendments that have language in them that isn't relevant. Are there any?

As far as I can see, the only reason there is language in this amendment that isn't important is that it's convenient for it to be so.

The twenty dollar clause of the seventh amendment comes to mind, I don't think anybody really gives it any mind whatsoever when it comes to its effects.

My impression is that the $20 dollar section of the 7th is something that no one knows what to do with as there is nothing to describe the intentions of the writers. Yet it is still kinda followed in that there is a minimum amount required for trials to be due a jury.

[Kernen]

No individual has the right to take life;

Plenty of situations arise where that is an amoral decision.

[Occupied Deutschland]

My impression is that the $20 dollar section of the 7th is something that no one knows what to do with as there is nothing to describe the intentions of the writers. Yet it is still kinda followed in that there is a minimum amount required for trials to be due a jury.

To follow that thread, though, the 'militia' clause of the second amendment is still utilized (through avenues of laws and statutes based upon militia organization as described elsewhere in the Constitution and in US law). The National Guard is, and has been since its inception, classified as the 'organized militia' belonging to the respective states unless/until federalized and called up. In a similar vein the same law lumped the fighting-age male population (because 1903 was a bit sexist like that) into the 'unorganized militia', which was then put into the purview of the selective service during WWI as a manpower pool.

Which are avenues of 'militia' membership not expanded upon in the Constitution at all and largely left to acts of Congress (the Militia Acts of 1792, specifically, at the beginning of the country's history). But that largely left the organization, training, and supply and such to the states, which meant some clusterfuckery through the years whenever state militia units served alongside of federal or 'volunteer' forces (The Spanish-American war being the one that highlighted the problem so much it forced the creation of the National Guard as the US has it today). Hence the rewrite/overhaul in 1903 that we still operate under.

Point being that 'militias', like lower limits on the amounts that justify a jury, are something historically and presently utilized, if we are to take that tack as the descriptor of the clause's active 'usage'. Such a interpretation wouldn't necessarily change the militia clause into anything grammatically different (it would still be a prefatory clause with no real action dependent upon it) while still using it, in conjunction with the other militia statutes in the Constitution, as an impetus behind the formation of the 'organized militia'. Essentially boiling it down to a bit of a circle where the Second Amendment's militia clause isn't actively justifying the presence of militias (such is provided for in other parts of the Constitution when they are just assumed to be present) but pointing out the 'why' of their assumed presence in the Constitution itself.

*shrug* At that point, I'd have to start looking at court rulings and such to see about the accuracy of such a reading, and that would delve into a whole 'nother world of historical context and legal research that I'm just not up for.

[Imperializt Russia]

Once again, many guns are not made to take lives.

BB guns, airsoft guns, nerf guns, 'cap' guns, of course. Hopefully you don't think I'm including toys.

Tens of thousands of target weapons that fire "live" cartridges.

Constituting millions of firearms in ownership in the US alone.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes folks, lets delve into the mind of an idiot, by the likes of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
Bill would pay gun owners to hand over assault weapons, and offer a $2000 tax credit. Now I don't know about you but this proposal is just down right fucking stupid and would be ripe to be abused.
http://thehill.com/regulation/legislati ... ult-rifles

Step #1: Buy a cheap 'assault rifle' for about $500.
Step #2: Turn it in.
Step #3: Get your $2000 tax credit.
Step #4: Laugh at this pathetic administration.
Step#5: Buy a good quality weapon with your new found tax credit money complete with accessories.
Step#6: Win.

[Sevvania]

Things like this genuinely concern me, because an uneducated (not in the overall sense, but in regards to the subject they're lobbying against) individual in a position of power can step up on a pedestal and spout misinformation, fearmongering, emotionally-loaded words, and outright untruths to a wide audience of people who genuinely don't know any better, and rally those people against the one particular aspect ("assault weapons") of a larger issue (gun rights) that should be the least concerning. And people will believe it, and perceive anyone who says otherwise as a closeted murder-junkie and/or a danger to children everywhere, because it's easier to take the media's word for it than it is to actually do some research.

The claims are so outlandish and baseless that they can be applied to anything, but since the layperson doesn't know any better, only one of these statements seems silly:

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

"Ferraris are not about transportation or daily commutes," Sevvania says. "There is no reason on earth, other than to drive as fast as possible at all possible times (especialy through school zones and/or while under the influence of drugs and alcohol), that anyone needs a car designed for a race track."

[Grinning Dragon]

Things like this genuinely concern me, because an individual in a position of power can step up on a pedestal and spout misinformation, fearmongering, emotionally-loaded words, and outright untruths to a wide audience of people who genuinely don't know any better, and rally those people against the one particular aspect ("assault weapons") of a larger issue (gun rights) that should be the least concerning. And people will believe it, and perceive anyone who says otherwise as a closeted murder-junkie and/or a danger to children everywhere, because it's easier to take the media's word for it than it is to actually do some research.

The claims are so outlandish and baseless that they can be applied to anything, but since the layperson doesn't know any better, only one of these statements seems silly:

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

"Ferraris are not about transportation or daily commutes," Sevvania says. "There is no reason on earth, other than to drive as fast as possible at all possible times (especially through school zones and/or while under the influence of drugs and alcohol), that anyone needs a car designed for a race track."

I think you pretty much nailed it on the head. It is all emotionally driven vs factually driven. I have always got a kick out of the whole "Has nothing to do with hunting" as if said weapon couldn't be used for hunting, let alone the very same rounds that are used in other variant type of weapons of that caliber. News flash, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, never was never will be.

It's as if the scary looking rifle somehow super charges that round into a child seeking round of mass destruction and makes ordinary men and woman turn into super killers and turn off their regard for human life or something.

[Kernen]

It's as if the scary looking rifle somehow super charges that round into a child seeking round of mass destruction and makes ordinary men and woman turn into super killers and turn off their regard for human life or something.

Its right up there with hollowpoints being Armor Piercing Police Officer-Slaughtering Deathkillers. Or that recent attempt by the ATF to consider 5.56mm ball to be armor piercing, despite being anything but.

[Grinning Dragon]

It's as if the scary looking rifle somehow super charges that round into a child seeking round of mass destruction and makes ordinary men and woman turn into super killers and turn off their regard for human life or something.

Its right up there with hollowpoints being Armor Piercing Police Officer-Slaughtering Deathkillers. Or that recent attempt by the ATF to consider 5.56mm ball to be armor piercing, despite being anything but.

LOL, I remember those "hollow point bullets go through anything" scare and other nonsense. My other favorite; "teflon coated bullets are made to pierce all kinds of armor" and need to be banned, instead of actually knowing what the fuck they were crying about while waving their arms in the air, like they don't care and yelling, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

[Mesrane]

Its right up there with hollowpoints being Armor Piercing Police Officer-Slaughtering Deathkillers. Or that recent attempt by the ATF to consider 5.56mm ball to be armor piercing, despite being anything but.

LOL, I remember those "hollow point bullets go through anything" scare and other nonsense. My other favorite; "teflon coated bullets are made to pierce all kinds of armor" and need to be banned, instead of actually knowing what the fuck they were crying about while waving their arms in the air, like they don't care and yelling, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

It's honestly little better than a genuine sickness of the mind. There aren't many issues out there that toss out facts in favor of wailing emotional "arguments" like gun control is able to do.

Facts? Research? Statistics! Never! I much prefer a brainless crusade against the constitutional rights of all gun-owners based off the actions of one nutjob!

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes folks, lets delve into the mind of an idiot, by the likes of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
Bill would pay gun owners to hand over assault weapons, and offer a $2000 tax credit. Now I don't know about you but this proposal is just down right fucking stupid and would be ripe to be abused.
http://thehill.com/regulation/legislati ... ult-rifles

Step #1: Buy a cheap 'assault rifle' for about $500.
Step #2: Turn it in.
Step #3: Get your $2000 tax credit.
Step #4: Laugh at this pathetic administration.
Step#5: Buy a good quality weapon with your new found tax credit money complete with accessories.
Step#6: Win.

Step five should be to repeat step one thrice, and repeat the whole process to achieve infinite money.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes folks, lets delve into the mind of an idiot, by the likes of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
Bill would pay gun owners to hand over assault weapons, and offer a $2000 tax credit. Now I don't know about you but this proposal is just down right fucking stupid and would be ripe to be abused.
http://thehill.com/regulation/legislati ... ult-rifles

Step #1: Buy a cheap 'assault rifle' for about $500.
Step #2: Turn it in.
Step #3: Get your $2000 tax credit.
Step #4: Laugh at this pathetic administration.
Step#5: Buy a good quality weapon with your new found tax credit money complete with accessories.
Step#6: Win.

Step five should be to repeat step one thrice, and repeat the whole process to achieve infinite money.

Doh! Curses why didn't I think of the infinite money loop!

[Big Jim P]

Step five should be to repeat step one thrice, and repeat the whole process to achieve infinite money.

Doh! Curses why didn't I think of the infinite money loop!

You all think too small:

Even better: do this once, then split the action into an infinite money loop AND an infinite gun loop. A third split could go for ammo.

[Grinning Dragon]

Doh! Curses why didn't I think of the infinite money loop!

You all think too small:

Even better: do this once, then split the action into an infinite money loop AND an infinite gun loop. A third split could go for ammo.

Genius, pure genius.

[Spirit of Hope]

Doh! Curses why didn't I think of the infinite money loop!

You all think too small:

Even better: do this once, then split the action into an infinite money loop AND an infinite gun loop. A third split could go for ammo.

Problem, your job is now buying guns and handing them over to a government agency, probably for destruction. So:

1) You are now the evil gun destroying monster.
2) Do it enough and the price of guns starts to rise.

I don't like you doing either of those things to me.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Things like this genuinely concern me, because an uneducated (not in the overall sense, but in regards to the subject they're lobbying against) individual in a position of power can step up on a pedestal and spout misinformation, fearmongering, emotionally-loaded words, and outright untruths to a wide audience of people who genuinely don't know any better, and rally those people against the one particular aspect ("assault weapons") of a larger issue (gun rights) that should be the least concerning. And people will believe it, and perceive anyone who says otherwise as a closeted murder-junkie and/or a danger to children everywhere, because it's easier to take the media's word for it than it is to actually do some research.

The claims are so outlandish and baseless that they can be applied to anything, but since the layperson doesn't know any better, only one of these statements seems silly:

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

"Ferraris are not about transportation or daily commutes," Sevvania says. "There is no reason on earth, other than to drive as fast as possible at all possible times (especialy through school zones and/or while under the influence of drugs and alcohol), that anyone needs a car designed for a race track."

Fully agree with everything stated here.

If anything, I would be willing to go so far and say that I don't think gun owners "f3ar t3h gubbahmint" taking our lawfully purchased and legal firearms away in the "traditional" sense that if often portrayed by the often hilarious anti gun lobbyists. It's that they/we have a justified fear that uneducated idiots in a position of power operating without due concern or even a full understanding of the situation at hand, will eventually rally enough misinformed sheep with misinformation, misdirection, and flat out lies to sneak in unconstitutional legislation that takes our rights, traditions, and for some our way of life away without a single fuck given.

[Grinning Dragon]

You all think too small:

Even better: do this once, then split the action into an infinite money loop AND an infinite gun loop. A third split could go for ammo.

Problem, your job is now buying guns and handing them over to a government agency, probably for destruction. So:

1) You are now the evil gun destroying monster.
2) Do it enough and the price of guns starts to rise.

I don't like you doing either of those things to me.

I understand what you are saying, and the weapons wouldn't be destroyed, the ATF will just hand them over to Mexican drug cartels since the agency is so fond of walking guns.
Other than that, it is just hyperbole playing along and making fun of a bill that has ZERO chance of making it out of committee due to the shear idiotic lunacy of the proposal. One would almost have to be a brain dead zombie to even think such a thing is a good idea as giving tax credits to turned in weapons.

[Sevvania]

One would almost have to be a brain dead zombie to even think such a thing is a good idea as giving tax credits to turned in weapons.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's where the loaded words and appeal to emotions come into play.
"We just want to make the streets safer for our children with this bill."
"Oh, well I want children to be safe, so I should help push for this bill."

When you add in the appropriate buzzwords such as "high-powered," (how can a .22 LR be considered "high-powered," while a 12 gauge capable of taking a man's head off of his shoulders isn't?) "assault," ("Assault is a crime! Why does anyone need a crime rifle?!" and "high-capacity," (30-round mags are standard on many modern semi-automatic rifles) it sounds like these are things that are terrifying and dangerous and that no civilian has any business owning. Add to this the fact that they slipped "assault rifle" into the URL but used "assault weapon" in the majority of the article itself just further reinforces the misconception that the two terms are interchangeable, and that vast amounts of civilians have access to fully-automatic weapons and that anyone can get a machine gun without a background checks even though this is about as far from the truth as you can get.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

No individual has the right to take life

Only Sith deal in absolutes.

it is why doing so is fitted with a criminal charge.

Except in cases of self defence.

[Holy Trek]

I've always been fairly torn on this issue, but I'm starting to wonder if there's a way to have a safe and effective gun policy with the right to bear arms stopping legislation. Should the amendment be changed? Should it be repealed?

Mod Edit: Generalized title

The three 'RE's need to be applied vigorously.......REvisit, REwrite, REdefine........NOTE FOR THE GUN FANS, I DID NOT SAY REPEAL.

I only say rewrite because it seems apparent that too many extreme far-righties want to RE-interpret the meaning into "Oppose Obama At All Costs"



and its fairly obvious that if you click the For and Against button in my sig, you'd see what I was for and against

[Sevvania]

I only say rewrite because it seems apparent that too many extreme far-righties want to RE-interpret the meaning into "Oppose Obama At All Costs"

But you can just as easily say that too many extremists on the other end of the spectrum interpret it as if it only applies to militias and muskets.

[Perrytopia]

Well, I'm certainly probably just beating around the bush, but wouldn't it just be more effective in the long run to establish a better safety net for the poor an vulnerable while simultaneously improving our education system? I mean, I might just be talking out of my rear end here, but aren't people less likely to turn to crime if they're educated or have the potential to "have a future"?

Also, wouldn't finding ways to place less stigma on mental illness in our society or finding ways to further reduce bullying in our schools have the potential to wipe out most possibilities for future mass killings?

While I might need to do some more fact checking, I'm fairly certain that there are nations with more lax firearms legislation and better public education and social welfare systems than the US that have significantly less crime.

Well, then again, this is the good old US of A. Given the current political climate, I sort of doubt that such sweeping reforms would fly.

[Grinning Dragon]

I've always been fairly torn on this issue, but I'm starting to wonder if there's a way to have a safe and effective gun policy with the right to bear arms stopping legislation. Should the amendment be changed? Should it be repealed?

Mod Edit: Generalized title

The three 'RE's need to be applied vigorously.......REvisit, REwrite, REdefine........NOTE FOR THE GUN FANS, I DID NOT SAY REPEAL.

I only say rewrite because it seems apparent that too many extreme far-righties want to RE-interpret the meaning into "Oppose Obama At All Costs"

and its fairly obvious that if you click the For and Against button in my sig, you'd see what I was for and against

You say "oppose obama" as if that is a bad thing. Country ain't about one dude sitting in the whitehouse. A president isn't king or all that important anyways. I don't see how it is a bad thing to oppose some guy sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, that proposes policies that contradict the Bill of Rights or any other Constitutional Amendment.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I've always been fairly torn on this issue, but I'm starting to wonder if there's a way to have a safe and effective gun policy with the right to bear arms stopping legislation. Should the amendment be changed? Should it be repealed?

Mod Edit: Generalized title

The three 'RE's need to be applied vigorously.......REvisit, REwrite, REdefine........NOTE FOR THE GUN FANS, I DID NOT SAY REPEAL.

I only say rewrite because it seems apparent that too many extreme far-righties want to RE-interpret the meaning into "Oppose Obama At All Costs"



and its fairly obvious that if you click the For and Against button in my sig, you'd see what I was for and against

Nobody will agree to a rewrite of the 2nd, because the anti-gun supporters and the pro-gun supporters aren't going to be able to agree on new language.