Would you be in favor of a total removal of the 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States?

[Stuart G]

I would. ......................2nd Amendment 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."

It is the total and complete reason for gun violence today.
The founding fathers had no idea what that would become. (It was originally enacted because there was no army or navy....
...............................Now there is an army & navy.)

Post by niyad: (in another forum)

Day 341 of the year. Mass shootings* SO FAR: 567. Dead: 685. Wounded: 2,294.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Would you be in favor of the relocation of Iowa to the East Coast?

It's every bit as likely.

And good morning.

[Stuart G]

3. Anything is possible....Donald Trump elected President?...I didn't think it was possible..It happened

[InstantGratification]

32. Trump

was elected even after losing the popular vote. This is wildly less likely. A 2/3 majority of BOTH houses of Congress. Then it has to each state where it has to pass by majority vote and this HAS to happen in 3/4 (ie, 38) of the states????

[pazzyanne]

82. Anything is possible...

I felt that way the morning I awoke to Jessie Ventura being my new Governor. I have to admit that trump was a much worse shock X 10!

[Stuart G]

291. PLEASE READ POST NUMBER 286...THAT IS THE ISSUE...AIN'T IT?

POST 286 AT LINK BELOW...PLEASE READ THIS ONE:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18518689

ALSO READ 291 AND 194................... ...POST 194..............is six below this post...just 6 below this post

POST 194 posted by : ProfessorGAC

[Escurumbele]

71. Yes, I would be in favor of a removal of the 2nd Amendment.

Just read about countries where the government encouraged their militia to act in favour of the regimes. Venezuela did that, and the atrocities these people committed, on a daily basis, could be compared to any of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind. There is no room for a militia in the USA. Just imagine the thugs who attacked the capitol if they had been authorized to have guns that day.

[Voltaire2]

2. Sure. It's a f'ing stupid 'right'.

Guns should be strictly regulated. Like cars only stricter. Get trained. Get a license and insurance. Go to jail for violating the regulations.

[Stuart G]

5. I agree with you ..........

Founding Fathers had no clue. In the 1790s only men with "qualifications" could buy guns. AND ALSO:

And in the 1790s rifles were very expensive......(hand made..not machine made)

[Wednesdays]

43. And rifles were muzzle-loaded.

You could get a shot off once in, say, 60 seconds or so.

[aeromanKC]

47. Musket office shooting

[ProfessorGAC]

194. Experts Say The Best Of Riflemen...

...could get 7 shots every 2 minutes, or a shot every 17 seconds.
Today, one could unload a 22 shot magazine in that 17 seconds, without any modifications to increase rate of fire.
And, that 17 seconds was for the best & most experienced musketeers.
For most troops, I was probably closer to 30 seconds. Today's weapons could fire 30 something shots, instead of just one. And, nearly everyone could do that now.
No possible way the founders could have envisioned the technological changes that now make 2nd amendment absolutism so dangerous.

[Straw Man]

213. And ...

No possible way the founders could have envisioned the technological changes that now make 2nd amendment absolutism so dangerous.

... no possible way the founders could have anticipated the technological changes (radio, TV, internet, cell phones, social media) that now make 1st Amendment absolutism so dangerous.

See how that works?

[ProfessorGAC]

216. An Appropriate Username

Your response is a nonsequitur.

[Straw Man]

222. Not a professor of rhetoric, I see.

An Appropriate Username

Your response is a nonsequitur.

A non sequitur and a "straw man fallacy" are two very different rhetorical faux pas, neither of which I committed. I made an analogy. Your failure to recognize it doesn't diminish its relevance or accuracy.

[SlimJimmy]

283. With that logic, then we should go back to quil and ink?

Bottom line, end of story. Without the 2nd, we have no way to enforce the 1st. Without the 1st, we have no real freedom.

[yagotme]

252. Why not?

No possible way the founders could have envisioned the technological changes that now make 2nd amendment absolutism so dangerous.

They wanted the best weapons for their troops at the time, and I bet they would have LOVED some militia guys showing up with AR's.

https://www.historyinthemargins.com/2021/11/16/the-puckle-gun-not-to-be-confused-with-pickle-ball/
Wasn't for lack of trying. Early 1700's technology.

[CTyankee]

410. because the danger to innocent people is so much greater with today's weapons. And people in the l8th century could not

have envisioned today's weaponry. Of course, it wasn't for "lack of trying." But that is not the issue. All the "trying" in the world could not thrust them a couple of centuries forward in how guns work today.

[yagotme]

411. The Puckle gun was a predecessor of the concept of the modern revolver.

Only thing really lacking was the self contained cartridge, which came about in the mid 1800's. I say that they WERE trying to envision the future of weapons. Just the lack of technology was holding them back.

[CTyankee]

412. OK, I'll take your premise. So are you saying that as that technology changed, the founders mindset would be the same as

in the 18th century? We are the inheritors of their thinking in their day. I believe they would be taking into consideration other factors that would influence their thinking. I think if they were magically transported to today they would be as horrified as we are at the constant barrage of news about shootings and how many innocent people lay dead at the scene of many of today's violence with the guns we have in our possession, not to mention the innocent people ( including children and infants) are a part of the slaughtered.

I believe the founders would want to have some say in that. They had families and innocent children. They wanted them protected not thrust into the middle of a shootout.

[yagotme]

413. I agree that they would be horrified.

Also, horrified at the fact that so many career criminals get out of jail early, just to go and commit the same, if not worse, crimes again. Horrified at the fact that certain states and local entities don't allow people to properly protect themselves, per the 2d. They would be wringing their hands at what some people have come up with in their "interpretation" of their words in the 2d amendment.

I believe the founders would want to have some say in that. They had families and innocent children. They wanted them protected not thrust into the middle of a shootout.

Protected, how, like body armor? Criminals are going to get guns. They commit crimes, thus, criminals, right? Breaking the law. Murder is against the law. There were criminals in the 1700's, also. I believe that the founders would want to have a weapon on them if they went out and were confronted by an armed criminal. A "shootout" is more than one person shooting. A murder, or massacre, you only need 1 person shooting. The criminal.

[CTyankee]

414. I'm trying to envision how nice that would be in my daily life. How safe I would feel at home, driving in traffic, in a

store. I'm retired and elderly, I could have a gun to protect me in my home against intruders. I could sleep with the loaded gun next to my bedside. I could drive with my gun in the passenger seat of my car. I'm 84 but I could grab my gun and shoot anybody who looked at me funny.

Help me out here. Let me hear how this would enhance my life.

[yagotme]

415. If you personally felt it would, go for it.

Freedom of choice. Nothing in the 2d amendment says you HAVE to carry a gun. Just the right to do so if you're so inclined.

[CTyankee]

417. That's good to hear!

We have an alarmed house that we turn on for night time safety reasons. I feel pretty safe here. My biggest worry is that one of us will have a fall and no alarm device on our person. He fell once and cracked his head and I had to call 911 but he was sewn up in the ER and sent home by medical taxi. Two strong men carried him up to bed. I've suggested assisted living but he won't hear of it.

[yagotme]

418. They have personal alarms. Around your neck, etc.

Have seen them on TV. Not "pushing" it, per rules, but maybe it's something you should consider for him as a safety measure. My BIL has one, lives by himself in an apt., has a couple of health issues where he might need it.

"Help, I've fallen, and I can't get up."

[CTyankee]

419. As long as I'm here, it won't happen. But I don't feel I could leave him to visit my kids over Xmas. I'd be too scared.

I have considered it. I could be here when he showered and then leave on Xmas Eve, returning on the day after Xmas. I wouldn't want him alone in the shower, even with all our safety bars and a shower seat, because there's always the danger of slip and fall getting out of the shower. I just see danger everywhere and it scares me...

[yagotme]

420. I understand. Both of my parents ended up in LTC.

I don't know the layout of your house, but the alarm would be a good idea for a "late night visit" to the bathroom, where you may not hear him if he has some kind of misfortune, or for a run to the store, etc. Hope you find a good answer.

[Think. Again.]

4. Yes, I would...

Last edited Mon Dec 11, 2023, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

...it's entirely obsolete.

The state 'Militia's, or 'State Defense Force' (SDF) that need to be 'well-regulated', ("Depending on the state, they may be variously named as state military, state military force, state guard, state militia, or state military reserve." -wikipedia) have no mandate for personal gun ownership, and some will supply any necessary arms to it's members:

"Weapons qualification and training is provided in some SDFs. However, most SDFs do not require weapons proficiency. A 2006 report by the U.S. Freedom Foundation, an organization affiliated with the State Guard Association of the United States, recommended minimum standards for state defense forces, including weapons training, but the report has been largely ignored. Some SDFs have laws that in the event of deployment by order of the state legislature and/or governor, they will become armed." -wikipedia

The 2nd amendment is moot and should be removed except for historical reference purposes.

[SlimJimmy]

288. Wow, how many times must we go over this? A well regulated militia means ...

The 'Militia' that needed to be 'well-regulated' has been replaced with the National Guard which supplies any necessary arms to it's members.

So very wrong. The actual militias in the US are SDFs, State Defense Forces, but they are not well regulated by the federal government because the federal government has no jurisdiction over them. Oh wait, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the National Guard either. But you already knew that, right? But, but, but they can be federalized by the US Government in times of emergency. Yes they can, then they become standing troops, not militias.

Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment 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.” Referred to in modern times as an individual’s right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the “true palladium of liberty.” In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/48–1826) described as the “last coup de grace” that would enable the states “to thwart and oppose the general government.” Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen. (See also gun control.)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment

Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen.

[Think. Again.]

320. Thank you for correcting me!...

I was unaware of the 'State Defense Forces' and assumed 'State National Guards' played that role.

I have edited my post to reflect that correction.

[NewHendoLib]

6. Yes.

[Give Peace A Chance]

75. If it were up to me / Song by Cheryl Wheeler

Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin
Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
Maybe it's taxes, big business
Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing.
If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.

[elias7]

7. I know it doesn't say what gun humpers say it means

I’d like to see a Supreme Court that has the intellectual honesty and the guts to actually apply it as it was intended, rather than be striking down city and state statutes and laws because they infringe on an individual’s right to own guns, which is quite different than “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and certainly does not refer to any militia, well regulated or not.

[Fullduplexxx]

8. And if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle

But that's what I've been saying about the 2a . the 2a went the way of the militia and the only gun rights you have now are a gift from the scotus

[The Contrarian]

48. Pretty transphobic I've got to say

Please do better.

[Fullduplexxx]

123. It is not transphobic . I dont degrade anyone with that statement

C

[The Contrarian]

148. Your aunt can have a dick and still be your aunt.

[Voltaire2]

72. Consider deleting your post.

[maxsolomon]

110. Always heard that cliche with balls.

Never thought about it being transphobic; I think it precedes transphobia.

"If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle" is a colloquial, vulgar, and humorous expression. It is used to dismiss a hypothetical remark. The expression means that the hypothetical situation is impossible and there is no point in discussing it.

[Fullduplexxx]

124. I always heard it said with dick ...hmmmm

Well be it dick or balls it is more likely to become a reality than the 2a being stripped from the constitution

[Gidney N Cloyd]

202. I always heard it more like this:

&t=5s

[Hekate]

226. Heh. "If my Aunt had wheels she'd be a pastry cart," says my husband. No offense to pastry carts.

[ShazzieB]

284. As far as i know, that expression precedes the coining of the word transphobia.

It also precedes any understanding of what it means to be transgender, AND it is factually inaccurate. Your aunt can have a dick and/or balls and still be your aunt. Futhermore, your uncle can have a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries and still be your uncle. That means that expression is outmoded and no longer a valid analogy.

There was a time that analogy worked, but it doesn't anymore, unless you believe biology is destiny and it's not possible to transition to a gender other than the one assigned to you at birth. This is Democratic Underground, not Republican Underground, and as Democrats, progressives, liberals (pick the label of your choice), we know better than that.

[maxsolomon]

293. Good luck with your campaign against this colloquial expression.

I haven't made much headway with mine against DU's knee-jerk wishes for convicted criminals to be raped in prison.

[ShazzieB]

369. I know i can't cnotrol what anyone else does.

But as someone who aspires to be an ally to the LGBTQ+ community, I feel an obligation to always call out what I belive to be transphobia (or homophobia, although that is much less of a problem here at DU, from what I'm aware of).

Habits and customs change gradually, not instantaneously. Multiple reminders are often necessary, requiring those who are aware of an issue to take a stand when called for. I can't look the trans members of this community in the eye (figuratively speaking) if I am not willing to speak out when I see transphobia, intentional or not, at DU.

The impact of an action is not determined by its intentionality or degree of casualness. Like racism or homophobia, transphobia that is casual and unintentional can have just as serious an impact as that which is deliberate and intentional.

[Lunabell]

315. Seriously?

This is a bigoted piece of shit reply.

[edisdead]

9. No I wouldn't want it removed completely

Removing it completely means there is nothing regarding the issue. I also believe people should have access to guns. I think that there should be clearly stated restrictions in whatever replaced ot or whatever re-write is done on it. But complete removal? Nope.

[Stuart G]

11. CLEARLY STATED RESTRICTIONS ARE UP TO STATE GOVERNMENTS.

THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE...

PEOPLE WILL STILL HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS BUT........... NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
ACCESS TO GUNS WILL BE A ..........STATE ISSUE..................NOT A FEDERAL ONE.....

NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GUARANTEED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

[edisdead]

15. States Rights being argued for on DU.

Well how about that!

No thank you. I do not want guns left up to states rights because as we can see in places like Indiana and their gun laws having an effect on Illinois that doesn’t work! Guns. Implements of death, and the restrictions on them ABSOLUTELY should be set at the national level.

[Karma13612]

31. 100% agree

States rights are getting over-used. To put it bluntly.

It should not matter what your zip code is for:

Anything to do with human rights, health, safety, VOTING, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, who you love, who you marry, etc.

[Voltaire2]

69. Well the federal government is almost entirely disfunctional.

Any significant reform at the national level seems improbable. Worse, we are stuck with a fascist/theocratic court that aggressively blocks anything remotely progressive.

On the other hand the american fascist ideology includes ‘states rights’ as one of its pillars. (For obvious and invariably awful reasons.) We should exploit that feature as much as possible.

[edisdead]

150. I believe the question is largely theoretical to start with.

[Scrivener7]

10. No. I would be in favor of an amendment that says the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment is no longer

a salient factor, and the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable limits, and which then spells out those limits.

The "gun culture" has truly become nothing more than a fetish that allows a certain segment to virtue signal to each other.

Reasonable gun ownership is not the problem.

[Stuart G]

16. IS THIS REASONABLE GUN OWNERSHIP?

Post by niyad:.............................IS THIS REASONABLE GUN OWNERSHIP?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA...DO YOU?... (perhaps if this were one of your family members...you would have a different opinion)

Day 341 of the year. Mass shootings* SO FAR: 567. Dead: 685. Wounded: 2,294.

[Scrivener7]

18. There is no reason for you to go off on me. You asked a question. I answered it.

We were once a nation that allowed gun ownership but that did not have daily mass shootings. I believe it is possible to get back there but restrictions would need to be put in place.

Also, restriction is much more likely to be a possible outcome than elimination. And well-considered restriction would go a long way to reduce the numbers of guns in dangerous hands.

Now, StuartG, I love you. But you have no idea about me or about my experiences with respect to guns. I will tell you simply that I have probably been in a lot more dangerous situations due to our nations gun problem than about 99% of the people on this site. So I DO have an idea. Probably a lot more than you. So please try and be civil if you decide to reply to this post.

[Stuart G]

30. i am sorry if ...I went off on you.

[Scrivener7]

33. No worries.

[CTyankee]

231. "Reasonable gun ownership" is a mirage. It becomes a tragedy when a reasonable gun owner gets angry, drunk and goes for

the gun. Dead people are the result. With a gun present, every argument can become a murder. Guns are fast and efficient and you often can't stop the gunner, you are shot before you can lay a hand on them. Think about it.

[yagotme]

253. Well, with the current number of firearms available,

the amount of liquor available, and all the tension and stress the world is currently experiencing, shouldn't we all be dead by now? Unless, of course, nearly all the gunowners have a lot of self control, and it's just a few that commit murder. The total death tally leans heavily towards suicides, did you know that?

[CTyankee]

263. No, but it doesn't surprise me.

The presence of a gun itself is a risk. If my niece's killer had not had a gun in all likelihood he could have been stopped by the other three people in the room from hurting anyone else. He got off 3 shots: one that grazed his sister in law, the one that killed my niece and the one he used to kill himself. My niece had dialed 911 and said "There's going to be a shooting...." Those were her final words and it went into the police report. The grandmother was dying of cancer and she passed the next day. It is unclear whether she knew what was happening and we'll never know.

Her funeral was perhaps the saddest I have ever been to. She had an open coffin since my brother had wanted to show everyone that her beauty had not been marred, just a bruise at her temple that had been covered with makeup by the funeral home.

I have a clipping from the report in the Dallas Morning News of this happening.

[yagotme]

264. I'm sorry for your loss.

Unfortunately, too many suicidal people (who, are LITERALLY, not in their right minds,) end up taking others with them when they go. I just wish we had better mental health reporting/care, maybe we could reduce this number by quite a bit.

BTW, I believe suicides are roughly 2/3 of firearms deaths. My belief is we should start there, maybe improving mental health care will affect both sides of those numbers.

[CTyankee]

373. We should do that, of course, but that won't solve the gun problem here in the U.S.

[Abnredleg]

12. The Rights Listed in the Bill of Rights are Inalienable Rights

That is, they were not created by the Constitution but rather exist as natural or "god given" right. When the Bill of Rights was being debated the opponents argued that there was no need for it since it was recognized by society that these rights existed. The proponents argued that these rights were so fundamental to our liberty that they needed to be explicitly protected. Therefore, eliminating any Amendment wouldn't eliminate the underlying right because the Amendment didn't create the right to begin with.

This not to say that rights can't be restricted, only that the right can't be eliminated by government action since it wasn't created by government to begin with. The issue we have is how the right is interpreted, and that can be dealt with by winning elections and changing the SC.

And for those who disagree with the notion of inalienable rights, just take a look at the first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

[link:https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights|

[Stuart G]

20. IS THE WIDE SPREAD AVAILABILTY OF GUNS........."GOD GIVEN'?

Why doesn't Great Britain have those rights?
or France?................

AMENDMENT 2 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS A .............MISTAKE...
AS WAS SLAVERY IN THE CONSTITUTION.........IT WAS ALSO A MISTAKE

SLAVERY AND GUNS EXISTED IN THE 1790s. We had a CIVIL WAR OVER SLAVERY.
AND THOUSANDS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY GUNS IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.

DID THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE ANY IDEA THE PROBLEM THAT GUNS WOULD EVENTUALLY BECOME? NO

GUNS WERE NOT THAT AVAILABLE IN THE 1790s AS THEY ARE NOW.
THAT IS ALSO A PROBLEM.

[Abnredleg]

28. You missed the bit about interpretation

And slavery is not in the Bill of Rights so the comparison doesn’t work.

To be be clear, I’m in total agreement that the current SC is misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment- I am arguing that the best tactic to get good gun control is win elections and change how the right is interpreted. Given the impossibility of getting enough votes to change the Constitution, focusing our time and resources on repealing the 2nd Amendment is a waste of time. We can achieve our goals by winning elections and appointing new Justices.

[yagotme]

254. The "country" doesn't have the rights. The people do.

If a Brit moves to the US, and becomes a citizen, well, the US govt recognizes their rights. The rights aren't "given" by the government, just enumerated.

[thatdemguy]

384. Do you think the founders

Saw the ability of the gov to listen to our conversations? How about electronically search our computers? How about stop online speech? Search our text messages and use them in court against us ( 5th amendment )? Pick juries against us and have trials that last years? Throw us in jail for 60 years?

Thats why courts have ruled for 200 plus years the bill of rights should be almost absolute.

[lastlib]

62. (including the right to a jury trial for twenty dollars?)

(7th Amendment)
With a few exceptions (2nd, 3rd, and 7th) I would mostly agree with you. The rights enshrined in the BoR DO need legal protection, as do some that aren't explicitly mentioned therein. What is mostly needed is political leaders who will respect them.

[Voltaire2]

74. Except for the 2A the are all quite alienable.

[Abnredleg]

80. All are inalienable

The problem is how the inalienable rights contained in the 2nd Amendment have been interpreted. Hence the need to focus on the SC.

[Voltaire2]

88. Just about every other BoR has been

Generously reinterpreted to reduce the scope and application. Also, you are mixing in the Declaration of Independence’s ‘we hold these rights’ inalienability clause with the bill of rights. There is no inalienable clause in the constitution or the bill of rights. Just about the only thing even remotely inalienable in the constitution is the attempt to make restructuring the senate impossible. And that is in there to protect slavery.

[Abnredleg]

90. That's what I've been saying all along

It’s a matter of interpretation. As to inalienability, it’s clear from the debate surrounding the BoR that the drafters viewed them as inalienable. This becomes clear when you look at the English Bill of Rights, which was based on the notion of natural rights.

[link:https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/english-bill-of-rights#|

[thomski64]

84. ..well, seems to me the militia thing.

..was to put down any slave revolt
2A doesn't mention any black people owning weapons. Seems the more things change the more they don't....

[yagotme]

134. Doesn't list white people, either.

Not sure if you're serious...

[NNadir]

349. I think opening a history book would be in order.

I would also suggest that if guns were created by a putative god, they would not have required invention. They'd grow on trees.

[markpkessinger]

350. The constitution can be amended . . .

. . . including in a way that would limit any of the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. So no, those rights are not inalienable in any sense of the word, nor is the U.S. Constitution in any way subordinate to a United Nations document.

[yagotme]

352. You are correct. Then that would eventually lead to a dictatorship/police state.

The BOR is a limit on government, not the population.

[Gore1FL]

357. Inalienable rights were defined in the Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness.

The Bill of rights aren't inalienable.

[Abnredleg]

358. It's not an exclusive list

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The history of the drafting of the Constitution is clear that the rights listed in the BoR were considered inalienable.

[Gore1FL]

366. Perhaps the 3 list have company.

If the rights in the first 10 amendments are inalienable, there would be no point in making amendments for them.

[Abnredleg]

380. That's What the Federalists Argued

But the public demanded that their inalienable rights be explicitly listed to ensure that there was no doubt.

Here’s the ACLU’s take on the BoR:

[link:https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history#:~:text=Recently%20freed%20from%20the%20despotic,from%20warrantless%20searches%20and%20seizures.|

[malaise]

13. The minute Authoritarian ReTHUGs seize power

(If that ever happens), they will remove it.
Take that to the bank

[ProudMNDemocrat]

51. Gun rights for me(MAGAt), but NOT for thou.(Democrats)

Just watch.

[malaise]

70. Yep

[usaf-vet]

86. Of course, what authoritarian government do you know that allows the people to be armed to the teeth to overthrow them..

..if so desired.

How would J6 have turned out if none of the "visitors" had weapons and tactical gear?

If only the Capital Guards had weapons?

[randr]

14. I would be in favor of enforcement of the "well regulated" part

[yagotme]

255. Free government training for firearms ownership?

I could most likely get behind that. Maybe incorporate it into schools, make it part of P.E..

[harumph]

17. It should be amended not eliminated entirely.

The reason I say this is because some people actually have a legitimate reason to possess for
protection of self or property. There is also the problem - like it not - where a majority
of guns in circulation are not registered. Confiscation would be a logistical and political nightmare.
Without registration you are depending on the willingness and honestly of gun owners. Good luck with that.
IMO, a decent amendment would need language that would allow the states to impose whatever
reasonable restrictions (to the federal limit) they deem necessary. But what is "reasonable?" Hence while I agree
with the spirit of the OP, the devil is indeed in the details. Maybe amend to include something
like "the right to possess a protective firearm in one's household shall not be infringed..." Just spitballing.
Then, we get into questions like "what is encompassed by the term protective." Maybe DU should
have a forum just for possible amendments to the 2nd. I suspect it would be a humbling exercise.

[mzmolly]

19. I'd be in favor people actually reading it.

[niyad]

22. With comprehension.

[mzmolly]

24. Right! The second amendment is about gun regulation.

[yagotme]

137. Then, what's your comprehension of the phrase "shall not be infringed"? nt

[mzmolly]

161. The context matters. Is regulation an infringement?

Does the word militia have meaning?

[yagotme]

169. Yes, regulation can be an infringement. If it denies access to arms, right?

If I deny/delay access to you to vote, a trial, etc., am I not infringing on your rights?

"Who is the militia?" This has been argued back and forth so many times, I'm tiring of it. The unregulated militia of the US can be said to be all law abiding adult citizens. Age, sex, etc., have been changed throughout history to meet the then current ideas.

[mzmolly]

203. What does well regulated mean to you?

As for militia. The meaning is clear.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Thank goodness for the well regulated part of the second amendment!

[Abnredleg]

228. As understood in the 1700's it means "well organized and trained" /nt

[mzmolly]

267. That's not what it says.

eom

[yagotme]

269. But, that was a definition in that time frame. nt

[mzmolly]

271. No it wasn't.

nt.

[Sal_NV]

273. And you know this....how?

Were you there at the time?

[mzmolly]

287. I was in the same place as the person I responded to.

You?

The suggestion that we should accept a libertarian revisionist source, for what was meant by any word in the constitution, is laughable. I'm sticking with common-sense constitutional scholars, thanks.

[Sal_NV]

329. Where did I say I accept anything?

I just asked a question.

[yagotme]

274. So, what does a "well regulated clock" mean?

Fed. govt. restrictions on the purchase and possession? Whether you can carry one outside your home? How many chimes allowed per hour?

[mzmolly]

276. Strawman 2

should be your username.

[yagotme]

282. Names instead of answers.

Got it.

[mzmolly]

285. I'm not answering absurd questions in which definitions

are changed to meet gun lobby criteria, because they don't care for the word regulated.

Got it?

[yagotme]

294. Got it. You don't like one of the definitions of a term that was in common use in the 1700's,

so you put your own modern spin on it, deny any original usage for it, and anyone that points to usage in the past, "doesn't get it"/"is a talking points spreader for the RW". Sorry, history is history.

[mzmolly]

299. The NRA sources are not factual.

I've provided some historical context for you from unbiased sources.

[yagotme]

302. "Time" magazine? Unbiased?

I'd like to see your dictionary...

[mzmolly]

311. Fox "news" fan?

Read the article for the legal decisions made near the time the 2A was written.

[yagotme]

313. You posted an article from "Time". "Time" has an anti-gun bias. Therefore, I suspect.

Did I post anything with "Fox" in the link? Sorry if I did, I usually try to keep away from that. If it's not a commonly known source, then, oh well. Can't keep up with everything.

[mzmolly]

328. LOL

The truth has an anti-gun nut bias.

Cheers.

[TexasDem69]

387. A well regulated militia

Read in the context of the 2d Amendment, can only mean a militia trained in the use of firearms. How else can a well regulated militia protect “the security of a free state.”

Let’s try it this way—a well trained militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you think regulated means something propose your interpretation

[mzmolly]

388. Read the convo.

I've provided context.

[TexasDem69]

389. You haven't!

You’ve ignored every post and continue to argue that well-regulated means something it cannot mean if the 2d amendment is to make any sense. I’ve read your time article—it doesn’t provide any citations for the argument but instead asks us to assume the author is right. And then engages in rhetoric to cast doubt on authority it doesn’t like.

Do you really think that the authors of the Bill of Rights used the same phrase “the people” in the 1st, 2d and 4th Amendments and meant an individual right in the 1st and 4th and a collective in the 2d?

Here’s a link to the 1874 opinion from the Georgia Supreme Court discussing the issue and cited in the Time article. The opinion clearly and plainly states that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Your Time article doesn’t mention this. https://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Research/CourtDecisions/State/53ga472.htm

And here’s a relevant quote from that opinion which confirms the 2d Amendment protects an individual right, subject of course to reasonable restrictions, and puts to bed your argument about well regulated:

“The constitution declares that as such a militia is necessary to the existence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To effect this end, the right to have arms would (p.476)seem to be absolute, since without this right, it would not be possible to attain the end contemplated, to-wit: an armed militia, organized and ready for the public exigencies. But it is obvious that the right to bear or carry arms about the person at all times and places and under all circumstances, is not a necessity for the declared object of the guarantee; nay, that it does not even tend to secure the great purpose sought for, to-wit: that the people shall be familiar with the use of arms and capable from their habits of life, of becoming efficient militiamen. If the general right to carry and to use them exist; if they may at pleasure be borne and used in the fields, and in the woods, on the highways and byeways, at home and abroad, the whole declared purpose of the provision is fulfilled. The right to keep and to bear arms so that the state may be secured in the existence of a well regulated militia, is fully attained. The people have, or may have the arms the public exigencies require, and being unrestricted in the bearing and using of them, except under special and peculiar circumstances, there is no infringement of the constitutional guarantee. The right to bear arms in order that the state may, when its exigencies demand, have at call a body of men, having arms at their command, belonging to themselves and habituated to the use of them, is in no fair sense a guarantee that the owners of these arms may bear them at concerts, and prayer-meetings, and elections.”

[mzmolly]

407. Bull

I’ve addressed this specific question over and over again, refer to the court rulings I’ve cited in the time article - once again.

[yagotme]

247. See 1b and 2 per your link:

https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Like a "well regulated" clock.

[mzmolly]

268. So says Libertarian Jon Roland, the founder of your source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Society

I'll stick to common sense vs. gun-nutter explanations, thanks.

[yagotme]

278. This one better?

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/105168/what-does-well-regulated-mean-and-could-it-have-meant-anything-different-in-t

I believe this paragraph helps:

To understand how training in discipline tie into the meaning of “well-regulated”, the following passage is helpful:

…going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia…

This one pass muster?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/well-regulated#google_vignette
WORDS RELATED TO WELL-REGULATED
analytical,businesslike,careful,deliberate,disciplined,efficient,meticulous,orderly,painstaking,precise,scrupulous,structured,systematical,adapted,agree,able,alike,amenable,applicable,assorted,comparable

[mzmolly]

297. How about this?

https://time.com/6331868/supreme-court-second-amendment-history/

The current Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is incompatible with the republican philosophy that underpinned the Constitution and animated the Founders’ thinking. Such a right risked allowing an individual the right to tyranny over one’s fellow Americans—similar to the absolute right a monarch had over his people, and thus the very thing the Founders wanted to prevent.

...

Republics, advised a famous ruling in Arkansas in 1842, did not vote for “anarchy.” To suggest that, in providing for a well-regulated militia, the Founders were condemning their descendants to cower under a reign of unregulated firepower, was to trade in absurdity. To deprive the legislature of the power to control firearms, argued the judge, would frustrate the end and aspiration of government: “peace and domestic tranquility.” It would condemn everyone to the perils that made government necessary in the first place. It was unthinkable that the architects of the Constitution would have authorized “a principle pregnant with such dangers.”

The Georgia Supreme Court struck a similar note of incredulity in an 1874 opinion. To have included an individual right to deadly weapons in the Constitution, declared the judge, the Founders would have had to believe “that their whole scheme of law and order, and government and protection, would be a failure.” Because that was where citizens armed with revolvers—these “inventions of modern savagery"—would take America.

Regulation was not about well-oiled clocks.

[yagotme]

304. In regards to the militia, "well regulated"

meant they knew their left foot from their right, could march in line, and volley fire properly. Drill, manual of arms, firing practice. The troops drilled, until they were "well regulated". Like a clock.

[mzmolly]

310. No. It meant we were not going to trade anarchy

for having access to a civilized nation.

[lastlib]

67. ...and courts/legislatures interpreting it the way it's written and meant.

"A well-regulated militia (comma) being necessary for the security of a free state(comma)the right of the people to keep and bear arms (comma) shall not be infringed."

Interpret it from the correct standpoint that "a well regulated militia" is the superior clause in the sentence. The other clauses are subordinate--explanatory.

[mzmolly]

130. Well

said!

[Straw Man]

208. And ...

... wrong.

Interpret it from the correct standpoint that "a well regulated militia" is the superior clause in the sentence.

That's not a clause. It's a noun phrase. It has no verb.

If you're thinking of an independent (as opposed to subordinate) clause, the only one in that sentence is "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I've underlined the subject and bolded the predicate. I can parse it further for you if you like.

[mzmolly]

220. "A well regulated Militia..."

..does not mean unfettered access to weapons of mass slaughter.

"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."

We're allowed a police force and military reserves - both of which are regulated and necessary for security. That said, the 2nd amendment IS an amendment and the constitution can also be amended to adjust for the times we live in. Children in schools are not more secure, because any fool can buy an AR on the internet. We are all far less secure, as a result.

Lastly, this isn't 1791. I don't personally consider the text (in context) relevant to our times. Let's consider the here and now.

[Straw Man]

221. Standing army vs. citizen militia ...

... is the whole driver of the Amendment. That's why the reference is to "the right of the people." The "security of a free State" is a reference to democracy as opposed to monarchy or autocracy.

There is not now, nor has there ever been "unfettered access to weapons of mass slaughter." Hyperbole is not your friend.

[mzmolly]

223. Well regulated

citizen militia? The Revolutionary War is over. Context matters, again.

You can argue that the US Army was not the original intent. Fine. I'll accept National Guard. However, the National Guard or a band of gun nutters, is no match for the US Government. So the original intent, as you assert it, is no longer relevant.

There is not now, nor has there ever been "unfettered access to weapons of mass slaughter." Hyperbole is not your friend.

Really? https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/gun-shows/

Most guns used in mass slaughter are purchased legally. That's not hyperbole.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/

[Straw Man]

229. "Purchased legally" is not equivalent to "unfettered access."

Laws on background checks vary from state to state, but federal law bans certain classes of people from legal access to firearms. Can they get them anyway? In many cases they can, and that can be addressed by tightening background checks on private sales. But absent the ability to see the future, how are you going to prevent a person with no criminal record or history of mental imbalance from buying a firearm?

[mzmolly]

233. You skipped over the articles I posted

it seems. "Regulations" work: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

But absent the ability to see the future, how are you going to prevent a person with no criminal record or history of mental imbalance from buying a firearm?

We can limit the kinds of firearms sold, by reinstating the assault weapons ban. We can create laws around re-selling guns - requiring consistent regulation.

See 'solutions' HERE

[mzmolly]

235. Well I'm open to your suggestions.

Got any?

[Straw Man]

236. I would suggest a gun owner's license.

It would require taking a safety course and passing a competency test. It would be renewable and revocable. It could even be tiered according to the type of firearm.

Most of what passes for "gun safety" legislation now is culture war and political gotcha-games.

[mzmolly]

237. Ban assault weapons

period. No safety class is going to make owning one reasonable. Stiffer laws for illegal gun sales. Buyback programs etc.

You may not like Everytown, but the research is clear no matter the impartial source they cite.

[Straw Man]

239. Political theater and a drop in the bucket.

Ban assault weapons

period. No safety class is going to make owning one reasonable.

The number killed by rifles of all kinds each year is in the hundreds. Overall gun deaths are in the tens of thousands.

If by "assault weapons" you mean all semi-automatic rifles, they have been available to civilians for over a hundred years. Good luck banning them. It would be like dealing with traffic deaths by mandating horse-and-buggies for personal transport.

[mzmolly]

240. Obviously there is a difference between...

guns available 100 years ago and those available today. More-so, 250 years ago, which is more relevant to the conversation.

I’m sorry for the children of this country that gun fetishists cling to a 250 year old amendment, taken out of context, to promote gun sales vs advocate for their right to safety and security.

We could learn from other countries on this.

https://time.com/6182186/countries-banned-guns-mass-shooting/

Instead we idolize guns? Thanks for your contribution in that regard. I see you have the NRA taking points down pat!

[Straw Man]

242. Difference?

Winchester made a semi-auto rifle with a detachable box magazine in 1905. Remington and Browning soon followed suit. These were available in calibers comparable to the modern .223/5.56 of the AR. It terms of practical function, they were virtually the same. Appearance, portability, and reliability were different, of course.

The AR-15 has been on the civilian market since 1963. Why did it take 40+ years for it to become a problem? Something changed in our society, something that's not going to change back if you remove that particular rifle from the picture. Increasingly, Americans want to slaughter random strangers. Why? The answer isn't "Because they can." They always could.

[mzmolly]

245. Blah blah blah.

AI writing your drivel?

The second amendment is apparently no longer relevant. You’re not defending anyone from autocracy, you are not part of a militia, and you’re opposed to being well regulated.

Society is not the issue. AR’s and easy access are the problems. The evidence is clear for those open to evidence.

Let me know when you join a militia and take down the government with your collection of guns.

[yagotme]

257. "Society is not the issue."

Well, yes, it is. Semi-auto firearms have been on the market for decades. The previous posted stated "Why is there a problem now?" Society. Criminals are getting away with more and more violent crimes. Want a suggestion? Lock up violent criminals for a long time. Get the violent tendencies off the streets. "Easy access?" Prior to 1968, you could buy a firearm through the mail, no background check whatsoever. Access is HARDER now than it was then, but the death rate is higher. Kids used to take guns to school, to hunt afterwards, or school shooting programs. So, that theory is dismantled.

[mzmolly]

270. Oh bullshit. What is this Free Republic?

Right wing talking points, abound.

[yagotme]

272. Sorry if facts get in the way of your way of thinking.

Do you have a specific point you disagree with, or just in general?

[Sal_NV]

275. Well you know that when the argument falls flat,

you throw the RW card.

[yagotme]

279. Yup.

[mzmolly]

290. I threw it because it's

applicable. I see your sockpuppets have joined the convo.

Here's a fact:

[yagotme]

295. Yes, those are facts.

And, to connect those facts, each is the state-of-the-art firearm for the period in question. Now, would ole GW want a Brown Bess for his militia, or an AR-15, if he had a choice? I have a pretty good idea of what he would prefer...

[Sal_NV]

322. Sock Puppet?

Just what are you accusing me of?
I am myself, there's nobody else that's me.

[mzmolly]

289. Facts?

From the right wing gun lobby?

[yagotme]

296. Facts are facts, regardless of source.

Do you have compelling evidence that I'm wrong?

[mzmolly]

298. You haven't presented facts.

https://time.com/6331868/supreme-court-second-amendment-history/

[yagotme]

301. This sentence ruins your whole article.

When the states debated the Constitution in 1787, they produced a storm of erudition covering every icon and anxiety of the republican mind.

Where was the Republican party in 1787? Oh, right, 1854 was when it started. So, the "facts" listed in your article don't bear the same weight. I guess my dictionary definition in another post wasn't good enough, either.

[mzmolly]

333. Seriously? You misunderstand what is meant by the word 'republican'

in the context of the article. The Republican mind, refers to the vision of the republic, in this case.

Good grief.

[yagotme]

334. Ah, so various words DO have different meanings... nt

[mzmolly]

337. None of those meanings refer to clocks.

eom

[yagotme]

340. The clock reference, btw, one that has been used several times before,

regards the precision of clock movement. A clock that doesn't keep time well, needs to be "regulated". Therefore, a properly working clock, is "well regulated", meaning it is performing up to par. A "well regulated" militia is one that performs it's duties/drill in a precision manner, like a well regulated clock. I'm really getting tired of typing this explanation over and over and over...

https://www.woodmagazine.com/woodworking-how-to/what-is-a-regulator-clock

Another RW site for you to peruse...

[mzmolly]

371. I get the ridiculous comparison.

It remains absurd.

[yagotme]

375. Absurd?

Providing proof to my point that "well regulated" had more than one meaning in the 1700"s? THAT'S absurd...

[ShazzieB]

353. Sounds like small r "republican" is what was meant.

The word has more than one meaning, as does the word "democratic." Capitalize Republican and you're talking about a political party. In lower case, "republican" means "pertaining to a republic."

[yagotme]

354. I know.

Just wanted to know if the poster that I have been going back and forth with over "well regulated" caught my take on words having different meaning. Scroll through the sub thread, you'll see what I'm getting at.

[thatdemguy]

385. That chart seems to be way off, it says 148 events in 41 years

Some said way above in this thread there have been more mass shootings this year than days.

Unless your just ignoring everything but things like pulse night club, sandy hook etc.

But using your numbers 148 in 41 years is pretty low.

And according to the gov less than 1% of guns used in crimes are legally obtained.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

[TexasDem69]

391. Heller addressed that argument

If the 2d Amendment is truly unnecessary then have it repealed. That’s an issue for the legislatures. But nobody wants it repealed, at least not a majority of folks on this message board.

[mzmolly]

408. After this discussion that I'd like it repealed.

Too many people changing the meaning of words to suit the NRA agenda.

[TexasDem69]

421. No, they aren't changing the meaning of the words

The words are relatively clear, as I mentioned in other posts that you ignored. But even if they aren’t, the 2d Amendment isn’t the impediment to gun control that some think necessary. There’s simply no great support for a firearm ban, or 30 day waiting periods, etc.

I’m still not clear on your position regarding “well regulated.” Read in the context of the 2d Amendment it cannot mean “subject to government regulation.”

[mzmolly]

422. Your revisionist definitions are noted.

And I've responded to them, repeatedly. The words are clear, your twisting of them is not, and has been repeatedly addressed:

https://time.com/6331868/supreme-court-second-amendment-history/

Republics, advised a famous ruling in Arkansas in 1842, did not vote for “anarchy.” To suggest that, in providing for a well-regulated militia, the Founders were condemning their descendants to cower under a reign of unregulated firepower, was to trade in absurdity. To deprive the legislature of the power to control firearms, argued the judge, would frustrate the end and aspiration of government: “peace and domestic tranquility.” It would condemn everyone to the perils that made government necessary in the first place. It was unthinkable that the architects of the Constitution would have authorized “a principle pregnant with such dangers.”

Thanks again for proving that repealing the 2A is necessary so folks like yourself can't continue asserting that regulation doesn't mean regulation.

[TexasDem69]

423. Nothing in your post disproves my point

Or even contradicts it. That quote simply says the government can make laws regarding the ownership of firearms. That’s exactly what the Supreme Court said in Heller. I notice you’ve ignored my post about the Georgia court decision. Care to comment on that?

Your proposed interpretation of the 2d results in gobbledygook—“a milita subject to strict government oversight being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

[mzmolly]

425. You appreciate the Bush loaded SCOTUS 5-4 ruling. I get it.

Free state mean anything to you? What about militia? I've addressed (the NRA) assertion that well-regulated refers to clock-like precision vs. actual oversight of a National Guard-like body. I agree with the first 200 years of court rulings on the matter.

More reading for you to ignore: https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/

There is a myth—or misconception—that the right to bear arms was a guarantee of individual gun ownership. The Supreme Court didn’t adopt that interpretation until a 5-4 opinion in 2008—219 years after the adoption of the Constitution!

...

In that context, the Second Amendment wasn’t about an individual’s right to bear arms: it was about preventing the federal government from interfering in the ability of the individual states to establish “well-regulated militias” and thereby protect liberty. Just as the founders created a constitutional system with three co-equal branches of government in opposition and balanced with one another, they believed the militia would meet the needs of national defense while also balancing the potential tyrannical power of a standing army.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/31/second-amendment-individual-rights/

You keep pointing to Heller, which was decided on a slim margin by a RW-slanted SCOTUS. Read the dissenting opinions by Stevens and Breyer here:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

I'm done engaging with NRA spokespeople.

[EX500rider]

175. My issue with that is:

I am sure they authors of it knew what they meant, after it was passed was militia service then required anywhere in the US to own firearms?

[yagotme]

258. Nope.

But I assume you already knew that, and was waiting for them to answer. Had a feeling that they probably wouldn't

[TexasDem69]

390. Fine, a well regulated militia is the goal

And the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the means. You still end up with a right of the people

[Squatchman]

21. Nope

It's a stupid idea.
The guns are already out there in the hands of bad actors.
Police suck.
Too many mass shooters.
Law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and their property and loved ones with whatever is at their disposal. Anything semi auto and high capacity preferably.
I'm a true blue Democrat that is also a life long gun owner and believe the 2nd amendment is a good thing. My whole family is like this.
I'm also what a lot of people would call a gun nut. Even my family and other gun nuts.
We're all CPL holders in my family and carry every day. I even got my yuppie son in law carrying a gun.
They got on board right after trump was elected president. They could see that his fanatics aren't all there and could turn into a threat.
After his remarks about becoming a dictator they're glad they have their guns.
That's what the 2nd amendment is for. Stopping threats like that and I'm quite surprised that any one here would want to take that protection away.

[gay texan]

34. Im in agreement

Im in red hell texas and a gay man. I travel protected because you never know what the hell a crazed MAGA will do if i happen to kiss my boyfriend.

[CTyankee]

77. I am someone whose family experienced a death because a law abiding citizen with a loaded gun in his night table

got angry and drunk while his wife was dying of cancer, out of his mind from anger at being cut out of her will (she had the money in that relationship). When the aunt's niece came by to help her in her dying moments she was killed by her deranged uncle who was drunkenly waving the gun around, fired it and hit her, killing her instantly. Without the gun present in such a circumstance, there would have been no shooting death. Once a gun enters that kind of situation, control of the individual waving a gun would not have resulted in a murder situation. My niece's dying act was calling 911 and saying "There's going to be a shooting..."

I have told this story many times on DU. Anger, alcohol, and availability of a lethal weapon ended my niece's life on this earth.

The shooter turned the gun on himself, ending his miserable life on earth.

What kind of a 2nd Amendment article can you make for me and my family? You can't.

[wryter2000]

122. We would have had more decades of Marvin Gsye's music if there hadn't been a gun

And let's not forget all the suicides that might not happen.

[CTyankee]

127. I grieved his death so much. I loved him and his message of hope.

The thing that we never know is how the family of a gun victim lives with that killing. In my family, the lives of everyone changed. Her sister went into the Methodist ministry. I am sure it was because of her sister's untimely death. I just hope she has found some peace.

What makes me angriest is this happened in Texas and do we see anything good coming out of her death in terms of gun control? She's gone forever and these goddamn gun restrictions are still not in place in order to keep another young woman with her life in front of her not suddenly gunned down...ALL BECAUSE OF PEOPLE'S BELIEVE THAT GUNS ARE GOOD AND GOOD FOR THEM IN THEIR LIVES! They have to know this is not true deep down. Yet they just keep believing in a deadly myth...

[wryter2000]

143. What a tragedy

[MorbidButterflyTat]

146. Curious...

"After his remarks about becoming a dictator they're glad they have their guns."

What does that mean? What will having guns do?

Do you and your family often come into contact with gun carrying tr*mp fanatics?

[radicalleft]

149. Yes

Do you and your family often come into contact with gun carrying tr*mp fanatics?

Yes...yes I do. Have you ever been to Michigan? These fuckers are nuts! Do you recall the "armed" protests at the MI state capital during the covid lockdowns?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

206. Michigan does love guns

There is a reason Michigan didn't make any serious attempt to pass any assault weapon and magazine capacity restrictions despite controlling the legislature and governors seat. Even with that they didn't have the support for it. That's why they concentrated on red flag laws, background checks, and safe storage laws instead of gun bans.

[Blues Heron]

23. Yeppers

[Axelrods_Typewriter]

25. It would be like closing Pandora's box. Or like closing the barn doors after the horses bolted.

Sure, the second amendment would be gone, but there are already so many guns in circulation in the US that I don't think it'd matter.

Not to mention the right wing gun humpers, who buy most of the guns and ammunition off the non-government-oriented market, think their gun rights are from god. The second amendment isn't where the buck stops for them, it's where the buck is passed between them and god. They'd continue to operate as if it were still there, because in their construction of the world it still would be.

That being said, being LGBT, I like having guns to protect myself from said right wing gun humpers.

[thomski64]

76. ..i agree..

..that's why repeal should include the confiscation of military style weapons... but I'd be willing to compromise..a ban on new sales and manufacture seems like a good meet in the middle proposal..

[yagotme]

139. What is a military style weapon? That definition has been slammed around for years. nt

[CTyankee]

91. You are right that being LGBT you are at increased risk of danger in many places in the U.S.

But having you over control of your own safety to the degree that you have to arm yourself, is unacceptable. You shouldn't have to move to a pro-LGBT rights state in order to just live your life. It puts you in a horrible situation: defend yourself with a gun, just to live.
Sadly, this is the reality of so many Americans who simply want to live their lives without anti-gay prejudice. But you have to weigh the risk of having a gun present in a bad situation.

Can you move away, just to be safe?

I know, it should NOT be that YOU have to be the one to move and not the rights deniers.

I have a stake in this debate. My grandchild is transitioning to female in California, where she and her family have medical care for her and protections against prejudice and violence against her. I am so glad to know she is safe and thriving in an already difficult situaton for her family.

[raccoon]

26. Yes but unless AI takes over, it won't happen.

[surfered]

27. Ban military style weapons

There is a hunting tradition interwoven with rural society in this country. The problem started when gun manufacturers had sold about every shotgun or deer rifle they could. That’s when they decided to market military style weapons thru a campaign of fear of crime. Once they made you feel that you would have to defend your home, well that shotgun loaded with bird shot would just not be good enough. You would need a weapon that was designed to kill human beings and large capacity magazines.

[Stuart G]

37. OUTSTANDING IDEA...TOTALLY ...'Ban military style weapons."

[yagotme]

55. Remember the '94 ban?

Didn't work out that well for us.

[Hangingon]

225. I remember it

Lots of people walking around gun shows with ARs and AKs with little “Pre Ban” flags down the barrel

[yagotme]

250. At a higher price, too.

What's that phrase about doing the same thing over and over again, and results???

[bucolic_frolic]

29. Strict constructionists should abide

with flintlock rifles. Guns in the hands of citizens were supposed to be a right and ready militia to defend the country. A lot has changed since 1793.

A militia was about patriotism and the nation State, not about private interests except defending home and family on the frontier, and against brigands in travel. We're a long way past that. Just like we know a lot more about mental illness, and those who shouldn't have guns. And we know that mass shooters often purchase their arms just a few days before their final exit events.

Who wouldn't be in favor of preventing mass shootings? Or any shooting? There are interests that would support neither, and that is revealing.

[yagotme]

50. If you follow the idea of "strict constructionist", then you'd better get off your computer.

Right now. There's no protection from the 1st Amendment for computers. Quill and paper, or manual printing press is it.

[Voltaire2]

78. A strict construction would consider all

available standard military issue weapons that can be carried by a human to be protected by the 2A. That was the point. But a strict construction would also not discard that pesky well regulated militia clause.

[yagotme]

140. "Well regulated".

Can also mean well trained, or working properly. A "properly regulated clock".

[Straw Man]

214. The "well-regulated militia" clause ...

... explains why the "right of the people" should not be infringed. It doesn't say the "right of the militia." Citizen militias require an armed citizenry. If you say that the decision to maintain a standing army made the Second obsolete, I would (a) say that said decision was a step in the wrong direction, driven by expansionist (... cough ... imperialist) tendencies and (b) ask why, then, the Second wasn't abolished then and there.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. 100!

[JT45242]

36. Nope -- not eliminated, but well regulated

Licensed users and owners who have passed a test like a drivers test.

Only those guns that are safe to use for intended purposes (I know many who eat mainly game -- venison, wild turkey, etc.).

Well regulated -- no magazine of more than 8 bullets. No assault weapons. Etc.

[Stuart G]

38. Yes, your ideas would help a whole lot. ........"Well Regulated"

"Well regulated -- no magazine of more than 8 bullets. No assault weapons. Etc. "

[Best_man23]

39. I've actually been using this argument on forums with MAGAts

I've said if P01135809 gets back in office and unilaterally suspends the Constitution on Day 1, he will also suspend their precious 2nd Amendment. So when P01135809's goons come for their guns because there's no more Constitution and no more 2nd Amendment, they should remember: They. Voted. For. That. To. Happen.

[Scrivener7]

41. Whoa! I'm stealing that!!

[BlueKota]

40. The reason I am going to say no

is because I think there are some legitimate reasons for limited gun ownership. I come from a family that had a lot of farmers in it. My cousin told me he needs a shot gun to protect his cattle from potentially rabid wild animals, and to protect his crops from other wildlife. I see that as a reasonable argument

Also though I love animals the reality, is there is not enough grazing ground for the amount of deer that need it to not starve to death. They also cause a lot of car accidents which endangers both humans and deers. Rifle hunting should remain legal!

Weapons that can rapidly fire multiple bullets, however, should not be allowed.

[progressoid]

58. Getting rid of the 2nd amendment doesn't mean getting rid of gun ownership.

Of course all of this is purely academic. We aren't getting rid of the 2nd amendment. And we still have more guns than people in America - in fact, more guns per capita than anywhere in the world.

[MichMan]

133. Some here believe a total ban is reasonable

Post # 128 for example

[progressoid]

145. OK. That's one option. Doesn't really matter since this is all hypothetical.

It'll never happen in our lifetimes.

Americans are in love with their weapons whether for hunting animals or people or little clay saucers.

Apparently we can't live without them. And every year 40 or 50 thousand people can't live because of them.

[Ohioboy]

42. No, I would rather the SCOTUS interpret the 2nd from the original militia standpoint

There are many places in the Constitution where the militia is referenced, and the meaning is clear. It was intended for common defense, not as a license for insurrection.

[thatdemguy]

386. You need to read the federalist papers

The reason for the 2nd was for insurrection. If the gov tried to "take" over the guns where there to stop the gov. It was also so the gov would not need a standing army that could be used against the people.

[Ohioboy]

404. You need to read the Congressional record where they debated the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd was clearly about common defense and military service. It was the way our founders came to grips with the historical tendency for kings to use their armies against the people. It was reasoned that a military force should come from the people in order to avoid tyranny.

An interesting thing about the 2nd Amendment is that in its original draft it contained a conscientious objector clause for those whose religions wouldn't allow military service, proving once again the intent was for common defense.

James Madison (a Federalist) produced an initial draft of the 2nd Amendment as follows:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

In other words, the original debate on the 2nd shows that it was intended to be for common defense, not a license for insurrection.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

[Joinfortmill]

44. A different interpretation & stricter laws

would be my preference

[ShazzieB]

300. Yes.

I'm honestly not a fan of the 2nd amendment, but I think we should focus on solutions that are actually doable. That would include requiring gun owners and users to be licensed the way you have to be licensed to drive a car, just for a start.

I'm also in favor of an assault weapons ban. And no, I don't know offhand how to define which weapons that would include, but I refuse to believe that's an insoluble problem. We did it once, and we can do do it again.

[yagotme]

398. Yes, a ban was done once, and allowed to expire, because it did little to nothing.

The law basically banned mostly cosmetic features, so the manufacturers produced the weapons without the features, and many anti gunners cried foul, because the law was poorly crafted. The wanted the guns GONE, but they didn't get what they wanted. Just a chopped, modified semi auto, that performed the same way it did before the ban.

And no, I don't know offhand how to define which weapons that would include, but I refuse to believe that's an insoluble problem.

If you're wanting to ban something, you need to be VERY specific in what you're banning.

[Sal_NV]

45. No, and even if it were repealed,

that wouldn't eliminate guns by any means, it would then be left up to the states to set their own firearm laws and most state Constitutions have their own version of the 2nd Amendment.
For instance, in my state, NV, this is in our state Constitution:

NEVADA CONSTITUTION
In 1982, Article 1, Section 11 of the Nevada Constitution was amended to add that:
Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for
lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes

.

[RocRizzo55]

46. Not really, however...

I would be in favor of making sure that people who understand the English Language interpret it as it was meant to be interpreted, and they explain that interpretation to folks who believe that it states that anyone can have a gun.

[chouchou]

49. Absolutely. Time and time again...

....reality proves that Americans, as a group, cannot handle dangerous weapons.
If our so-called leaders actually worked to make this country fair and prosper for ALL people, I'd feel different.
The daily grind and stress here certainly causes actions that a decent percentage of the population just can't handle.
We're 16th in happiness ranking (2022)

[yagotme]

260. Do you have a source for this?

....reality proves that Americans, as a group, cannot handle dangerous weapons.

380 some million Americans, roughly the same # of firearms, 40,000 or so deaths/year, 2/3 are suicides. I'd say NEARLY ALL Americans are doing OK with their "dangerous weapons". Methinks your brush painteth a wide swath...

[Ocelot II]

52. Good luck with that.

Also, "amendment" has only two ms.

[Martin Eden]

53. NO. Too many states would place almost no restrictions on firearms.

Those firearms could easily cross state borders without breaking any federal law. My hometown of Chicago has relatively strict gun control laws, but neighboring Indiana does not. The pipeline of illicit guns adds greatly to gun violence in Chicago.

2A is an obsolete anachronism. It needs to be rewritten for the 21st century.

I highly doubt it would be politically possible to completely rescind any Amendment in the original Bill of Rights, including 2A.

However, at some time in the future it might be possible to greatly improve 2A through the amendment process.

[multigraincracker]

54. Yet the Second never mentions guns.

Knifes, swords, land mines and rockets are highly regulated without argument. Go figure.

[yagotme]

57. I can go to the store and buy any knife I want, without paperwork.

I don't understand your context on that.

[multigraincracker]

64. There are laws in my state

that regulate blade length and concealment of knifes. They are regulated. But, why can’t you buy and possess land mines? Isn’t a nuke an arm? Why do only guns raise blood pressure?

[yagotme]

66. Carry and concealment, yes. Purchase, very little (depends on type, of course).

"Military combat knives" can be purchased nearly everywhere, some state/local restrictions may apply, no paperwork. Can be bought by nearly anyone through the mail. Firearms sold through dealers are papered upon purchase (4473). "Arms" in the 2d have been legislated to mean personal sidearms, rifles, shotguns, handguns. Machineguns, explosives, thermonuclear weapons, have different regulations. (By the way, it IS legal in most jurisdictions to own machineguns. There are special licenses through the Fed govt.)

[intelpug]

209. Knife regulation

Because the NKA (National knife association) up to this time has not got enough members or donors to properly mount a supreme court challenge to this issue. If such existed,, I have no doubt there would be changes there to

[Captain Stern]

215. You're right...sort of.

You can go to the store and buy any knife that the store is allowed to sell without the paperwork.

Just like I can go to the store and buy any drug I want without paperwork........unless the particular drug I want to buy is illegal...then the store isn't selling it.

Depending on the state you live in, you can't go to the store and buy a switchblade or a butterfly knife.

[yagotme]

248. But, to buy ANY firearm at a store, you have to fill out a form, get it approved, etc. etc.

Not so with every knife. So, yes, I was right for the biggest part.

[ShazzieB]

306. Depends on the drug.

Just like I can go to the store and buy any drug I want without paperwork........unless the particular drug I want to buy is illegal...then the store isn't selling it.

In my state, I can't go into a store and buy certain decongestant medications without paperwork.

Those drugs are legal, but the amount I can buy at one time is regulated, and I can't buy any without showing i.d. and signing a piece of paper (because they have an ingredient that can used to manufacture meth).

But other than that, your point is well taken.

[gopiscrap]

56. absolutely!!!

fucking gun humpers

[LexVegas]

59. No, I don't believe in removing rights. nt

[NNadir]

367. Would that include the right to live? It seems a lot of gun crazies have no problem with eliminating that right.

[LexVegas]

374. I dont believe in removing any rights. nt

[NNadir]

382. Well, historically there were people who claimed a right to own human beings. It was constitutionally protected.

The protection of that putative "right" was put into the constitution by the same people who claimed, according to some interpretations of the asinine 2nd amendment, that assholes could declare themselves "militias" and, among other things, shoot up concerts in Las Vegas, for just one example.

Would you have been against removing that putative "right," the right to own people and treat them like farm animals?

I think I have a right to not be shot because some people think they have the "right" to own machines whose main purpose is to kill people like me.

[LexVegas]

383. Ok. Good luck!

[yagotme]

399. Please cite the interpretation you are referencing:

...according to some interpretations of the asinine 2nd amendment, that assholes could declare themselves "militias" and, among other things, shoot up concerts in Las Vegas, for just one example.

I haven't heard that the Vegas shooter was a "militia member".

[NNadir]

403. Sorry, but I'm not prone to using sarcasm emojis. I have no idea what was going through the mind of that asshole...

...in Las Vegas or any other mass shooters, but since there are people who feel that their "right" to own weapons to kill people are connected to a constitutional clause written by slave holders who claimed a "right" to own people, that says "...a well regulated militia..." I'm mocking the "right" that mass murderers have to declare themselves a one person militia.

[yagotme]

406. Well, I took your post to be serious, so perhaps an emoji would help some of us out

to know what you're intent is.

[claudette]

60. Yes

Guns for hunting only.

[Sal_NV]

61. No firearms for self defense?

What about those of us that are retired cops?
Are we allowed to own and carry?

[Voltaire2]

81. Each state would have its own regulations.

Most states that are run by sane people would regulate guns, limiting the types allowed, requiring owners to be licensed and insured, and restricting ‘carry’, concealed or not, to individuals with a clear need to do so.

I do not see how being a former cop elevates one’s rights.

[Sal_NV]

83. Yes, I made that point in my initial post.

Being a former cop doesn't elevate my rights over any other american, that was kind of my point but I stated it badly.

[MichMan]

104. They will need you to go door to door and search for any prohibited weapons.

[Sal_NV]

106. Which we and everyone else here knows isn't going to happen. nt

[MichMan]

111. If we are going to get rid of the 2nd amendment, why not the 4th as well ?

[Sal_NV]

157. Hell, while we're at it, screw the BoR and the Constitution,

according to D. Trump and the maga crowd, they're highly overrated.

[Voltaire2]

128. not really.

There is no need to do that. Just make possession, after a super generous buyback period, a felony with a stiff enough penalty that only idiots will retain their precious guns. Then just wait for them to get caught.

[MichMan]

132. No hunting guns permitted right?

As long as people in favor are prepared to never win another election in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and others where hunting is very popular.

Since the real reason to abolish gun ownership is to stop gun violence against people, why not just make shooting a person a "stiff enough penalty that only idiots" would do it? Oh, wait, we already do that, don't we?

[Voltaire2]

151. I'm fine with hunting.

But you may not be happy with your gun choices.

We already execute people for murder. It isn’t particularly effective at stopping mass murders by people with ridiculous weapons. There is a problem. There are reasonable solutions. Currently all we are doing is making it easier for everyone to get ever more lethal weapons.

[MichMan]

163. I must have missed the hunting exemption in your post

"There is no need to do that. Just make possession, after a super generous buyback period, a felony with a stiff enough penalty that only idiots will retain their precious guns. Then just wait for them to get caught."

[Voltaire2]

165. Like I said, you probably won't like your choices.

But single shot bolt action rifles were used for a long time by hunters. I’m sure you will be able to manage.

[Straw Man]

243. Choices.

But single shot bolt action rifles were used for a long time by hunters. I’m sure you will be able to manage.

Most bolt-action hunters use rifles with box magazines. Sometimes they need a follow-up shot. Or two.

And before bolt-actions, hunters used lever-actions like the iconic Winchester, with tubular magazines that could hold up to 13 rounds, depending on the caliber. These have been called "hillbilly assault rifles." Do you propose banning these as well? They've been in civilian hands since the 1870s.

[Voltaire2]

280. Not unless they also become a problem.

I'm not interested in the diversion over gun spec definitions. I don't care. I'll leave that to actual experts who will assist writing effective legislation. We all know there is a huge problem with assault weapons. They need to stop being sold to civilians, the existing stock needs to be reduced, and possession needs to be illegal.

You can go kill bambi with a normal hunting rifle. You will need a license for whatever weapon that is, you will need insurance, you will have to abide by regulations regarding storage and transport. Yes it will be an inconvenience for the millions of responsible gun owners. Oh well. Too bad the idiots spoiled it for everyone.

[yagotme]

307. This statement speaks volumes:

Too bad the idiots spoiled it for everyone.

Now, apply that to every recreational sport in the world. Won't take long to get rid of all sporting events, will it?

[Voltaire2]

361. Yes because a few football riots are equivalent to a chronic epidemic of mass shootings.

Good point. I hate it when basketball fans attack schools and murder children. There must be something we can do about that.

[yagotme]

362. Yes, and the fans sometimes go out in public afterwards, assault people, damage property, spread a lot of litter, etc.

Glad we could agree. Let's stop mass sporting events. TV only. A more peaceful past time.

[Voltaire2]

363. For most sports fan 'streaming only' would no change.

But still comparing rolling a car over to slaughtering children in an elementary school is just weird. Not even Poe could come up with that.

[yagotme]

364. Must have missed the "assault" part.

Violent criminals, those sports fans. Streaming at home, they'll just have to beat themselves up, and tear up their own place, instead of someone else's.

[EX500rider]

303. "after a super generous buyback period"

Care to run some numbers on that?

I believe there are over 70 million long guns in US hands, not incld shotguns.
I believe at $1,500 a gun that would be over a billion dollars
If only half those are "assault weapons" then still over 1/2 a billion but not sure $1,500 would be enough as many cost more then that.

[Straw Man]

212. Because ...

Guns for hunting only.

... everybody knows that you can't kill people with a hunting gun.

[claudette]

218. No

Because the purpose of a hunting rifle is to kill for food and the mentally ill and domestic abusers wouldn't be allowed to have them. Police and military should have guns, too. No one else. In my opinion.

[Sal_NV]

219. Are you kidding?

Police and military should have guns, too. No one else. In my opinion.

That's some real authoritarian thinking right there.
First thing tyrants and dictators do is outlaw the civilian ownership of firearms.

[yagotme]

261. "Because the purpose of a hunting rifle is to kill for food"

Ahh, purpose. Isn't purpose primarily in one's thoughts and actions? A golf club is for golfing, except when used for bashing someone in the head. Same as a baseball bat. Tire iron. Criminal acts are perpetrated by individuals, not things. I have a rifle, that it's "purpose", is to punch holes in paper.

...and the mentally ill and domestic abusers wouldn't be allowed to have them

Well, technically, we have that now, for the most part. The mentally ill are often protected by HIPAA laws, and getting individuals reported to NICS has been difficult, or lax. Domestic abusers, when judged, often lose their firearms rights. Depends on state/sentence.

When the military and police are the only ones with guns, you are asking for a police state. Sure that's what you want?
.

[TexasDem69]

393. I would ban hunting

But not the ownership of firearms

[Cherokee100]

63. Uh Lets see

Let's see, how many guns do we need in this country? There are more guns than people. Even after what we 'export/smuggle', to other countries. Why don't we make cancer 'legal' too?

[yagotme]

65. I believe you are mistaken...

The founding fathers had no idea what that would become. (It was originally enacted because there was no army or navy....

Bill of rights ratified: 1791

Army birthday: Jun 1775
Navy birthday: Oct 1775
USMC birthday: Nov 1775

[doc03]

68. No but it sure needs updating. I think semi-auto long guns and magazines.

over 6 rounds or maybe 10 should be illegal. I am a former member of the NRA and have 10 guns at this time.

[SocialDemocrat61]

73. No

I favor stronger regulation. Limited the types of guns that individuals can purchase and own. Require gun owners to be licensed and register every gun they own. Plus require them to be insured. Treat gun ownership the same way we treat driving and owning a car.

[Firestorm49]

79. Ordinarily, I wouldn't object. However, with the threat of open Fascism looming, and the proliferation of white

supremacy all around us, I will still prefer to have anything potent that can work to protect me, my loved ones and my property. I’m not special ops trained. I’m just a regular Joe Blow who decided after TFG got elected that personal safety may become an issue in the future, as it turned out to be. The fear that gripped me years ago has manifested itself in the possibility that the idiot could win again, meaning they’ll do anything to win. In that case, God help us all.

[byronius]

85. Absolutely.

[Fla Dem]

87. Absolutely, but it will never happen.

I would allow hunting rifles and simple single shot handguns.

[world wide wally]

89. I still haven't seen a list of these "regulations"

But, it's only been 250 years since the second amendment was written.

[EX500rider]

177. Maybe look harder?

It is commonly asserted that the United States has more than 20,000 gun laws on the books at local, state and federal levels.

[world wide wally]

179. So, please enumerate these regulations.

I am quite curious.

[EX500rider]

182. You want me to lists 20,000 laws & regulations? How about you use google

[world wide wally]

187. just however many you think would make it "well regulated"

[EX500rider]

188. 20,000 laws does not sound like "poorly regulated" to me, YMMV

[world wide wally]

190. ...And then there is reality.

[brewens]

92. Yes. Not in the 70s or 80s, but I would have never imagined where we are at. n/t

[Freethinker65]

93. Yes, because owning of a mere firearm does not offer protection

Even as an organized group, as it once did.

However, realistically, leaving the right at firearms is probably the best we can hope for politically.

[moondust]

94. Be like Australia.

~
Within 12 days of the Port Arthur massacre, all six Australian states agreed to enact the National Firearm Agreement (NFA) establishing a national registry of firearm owners and a buyback program so that Australians could sell their guns to the government, and placing a complete ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

The NFA, which still applies today, requires Australians to wait 28 days before they purchase a gun, as this is the time required for extensive background checks. Applicants must obtain a licence and permit, be over 18 years old, provide documentation on where they will store the weapon and complete firearms safety training. Most notably, they need to provide a “justifiable reason” for owning the gun, which, unlike in the US, does not include self-protection.
~
https://lsj.com.au/articles/gun-control-what-makes-australian-and-us-laws-so-different/

[Straw Man]

211. No.

We're nothing like Australia, beyond being a former British colony. It's a pointless comparison.

Then there's this:

Most notably, they need to provide a “justifiable reason” for owning the gun, which, unlike in the US, does not include self-protection.

So one has a right to hunt and shoot targets but does not have the right to defend one's person? I call that the "take one for the team" school of social engineering.

[Aussie105]

319. Self defense?

If bullets come flying at you, how is you holding a gun going to protect you?

Force field built into your gun, perhaps?

Your bullets neutralise those coming at you?

Best buy a flak jacket instead if you really want protection.

The whole 'self-protection' idea is an illogical red herring.

[yagotme]

324. So, you don't believe that anyone has ever used a firearm for self defense?

I assure you that you are mistaken.

[ShazzieB]

316. Sound good to me!

[LiberalFighter]

95. It needs to be properly clarified.

It was not intended for the general public to possess firearms. That is why they had gun armories back then. The intent was to regulate slavery.

On another note. Regulate the gun manufacturers. They should be required to sell assault firearms only to the military/federal government. If they try to sell to civilians they lose their federal contract.

[yagotme]

100. But, who are "the people"?

Aren't "the people" the general public? And the armories were for storage of the militia weapons, not personal.

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

2d: 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.

4th: The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

4 amendments using "the people". Tell me how "the people" in the 2d means something completely different than the others, please.

[TexasDem69]

152. That's an absolutely incorrect statement

The “people” are you, me and everyone else in the U.S.

[EX500rider]

178. I don't think that is true

I am sure they authors of it knew what they meant, after it was passed was militia service then required anywhere in the US to own firearms?

[CaptainTruth]

96. It's no longer necessary for the security of a free State.

""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

One could argue it applied during a time when "a well regulated Militia" was "NECESSARY to the security of a free State," & today it's no longer necessary, so it no longer applies.

In logic terms, the 2A sets forth Condition X, under which Condition Y applies. When Condition X ceases to exist, Condition Y no longer applies.

Just my thoughts...

[Kablooie]

97. Yes. No reason for this to be a constitutional right.

It should be governed by laws that are tuned to the times.
The original meaning was so the federal government couldn’t disarm states and dominate them.
That meaning was eliminated forever by th court so it should go.

[DavidDvorkin]

98. Hell, yes.

[GuppyGal]

99. I would just like it to be interpreted correctly then removal is unnecessary. nt

[republianmushroom]

101. No.

[The Mouth]

102. Under no circumstances,

none. At all.

[usonian]

103. No, because all the others except the first would have to be renumbered, causing great confusion and cost.

However, it should simply be amended to exclude weapons of mass destruction, which did not exist at the time of its writing.

[yagotme]

107. Cannon existed in 1791.

You can buy an historical example today. A modern cannon requires a lot of paperwork, taxes, and background checks, but can be done legally. Haven't heard of any mass cannonings lately, though.

[usonian]

113. Try carrying one.

I guess that reinforces the point that only military had one and just maybe only military should.

Speaking of background investigations, until the extreme court rules against them entirely, a BI equivalent to one required for a secret clearance ( and not confidential) would suit me, even if some betray the trust imparted.

[yagotme]

114. Not just military:

https://revolutionarywarjournal.com/militias-in-colonial-america/

France, interested in the growing dispute between England and her colonies, sent Baron de Kalb, latter famed American Major General, on a covert mission to investigate. He reported that there were neither arsenals nor magazines, but the colonies had cannon and large stocks of black powder;

"Colonies" had cannon. Some, very well likely, privately owned. The "privateers" had cannon on their ships, and they were not "government" troops. So, yes, cannon were privately owned. There was apparently no law restricting ownership at the time, it seems.

[EX500rider]

181. Might want to think of a different phrase for that

weapons of mass destruction
a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

[usonian]

191. Yes, I used it loosely.

But I am a pacifist.

Killing more than one is mass destruction to me, where one is still unacceptable.

ESPECIALLY in civil society, rather than war.

IMO, the world really went to hell with mass civilian killing. I am thinking WWII, but it no doubt goes further back. They’re all wrong in my book.

[EX500rider]

196. Sure, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane both slaughtered millions

and would literally make pyramids out of skulls

Khan's armies may have slaughtered more people than Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler's combined. His military campaigns sometimes involved eliminating an entire civilian population. As many as 40 million people were killed under his rule.

[usonian]

198. But not individually.

My concern is here at home, where one person can slaughter many.

“To insure domestic tranquility” seems lost.

[LeftInTX]

105. Yes

[H2O Man]

108. No.

[DBoon]

109. Yes

We should no longer need armed force to quell slave revolts and attacks by Native American

[Chainfire]

112. If the SC simply put the first sentence into perspective, and context of the time, the amendment could stand.

The "well regulated militia" was the Army in the USA at the time the Constitution was written and amended. . Even if the amendment was nixed the the red states would then add similar or worse protections of gun rights to the state constitutions.

There are no easy fixes for the gun problem. Nothing changes until the people demand change. There is too much money to be made in the gun business.

[yagotme]

115. No, the army was the army.

Army started in 1775. Constitution ratified 1791. How about the second half? Are "the people" the same people listed in 3 other amendments in the Bill of Rights? If not, how so?

[Chainfire]

147. The first sentence in a paragraph tells you what the rest of the paragraph is about.

It is about a "Well regulated militia" which today may be the National Guard or Army reserve.

[yagotme]

167. So, in ignoring my question, I'm to take it that you see "the people" in the 2d,

as the National Guard. Gotcha. So, only the National Guard can peaceably assemble? Be secure in their papers?

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.

"A well regulated militia" (not a free standing army), "being necessary to the security of a free State" (we had just fought a war against a nation that used it's army to subdue the population), (Here's where it gets interesting. Another comma. Perhaps to separate the first half from the second??) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" (Not the army. Not the guard. The PEOPLE. And, a RIGHT, not a "well, if I feel like letting you have them&quot , "shall not be infringed." (Well, pretty self explanatory.)

[Midwestern Democrat]

170. Agreed. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty for gun control advocates to claim the 2nd Amendment isn't about an

Last edited Sun Dec 10, 2023, 02:46 AM - Edit history (1)

individual right to keep and bear arms. The American colonists had the right to keep and bear arms under the English Bill of Rights of 1689 when they were British subjects, for God's sake. The English Bill of Rights stated "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

[yagotme]

172. Well, for whatever reason, they keep on trying...

[wryter2000]

121. They did once upon a time

That was the point of US v Miller, I think in the 1930'. That's why we were brought up to know what the amendment was really about--raising a militia, not individual rights.

[bif]

116. It hasn't been needed for over 200 years

[LonePirate]

117. Its removal is long overdue.

The amendment has been bastardized and misinterpreted that the only solution for this country is to repeal it.

I am open to replacing it with a new amendment that permits the possession of a single handgun per adult in one’s home/on one’s property; but not in public in either an open carry or concealed carry manner. I might be open to an exception for hunting rifles or shotguns for rural residents only or heavily regulated hunting rifles loaned on a temporary basis by LEOs for the express purpose of regulated animal hunting.

[MichMan]

135. The vast number of shootings of people are done by people with handguns, not rifles.

[wryter2000]

118. Yes

We no longer need state militias to defend the country. That wouldn't make guns illegal, but it would take away the "right to bear arms" argument.

[SYFROYH]

119. No. I disagree with your premise.

[GoodRaisin]

120. It certainly needs to be updated

so that gun ownership and laws are reasonable. The writers of the constitution didn’t see military assault rifles coming…

[yagotme]

193. "Military assault rifles" were a requirement for a militia member at that time.

Along with accoutrements (bayonet, powder horn, ball pouch, etc.)

Bet if ole Georgie could have had a company or two of militia armed with the lowly AR-15, Valley Forge wouldn't have been necessary. M-16's would probably have scared the Brit's right off our shores.

[Hangingon]

224. Colonials we're all out to capture a Brown Bess

[yagotme]

249. Yup. The "assault weapon" of the era.

Quicker to load than a Pennsylvania rifle, and had that eeebilll bayonet lug.

[broiles]

125. Yes!

[Iggo]

126. Hey, there it is! The "All Or Nothing" false dichotomy.

Gunfuckers love that one.

Another one of their greatest hits is: “You guys come up with ideas, and we’ll tell you if we like them or not.” (Spoiler: It’s always “or not”…lol.)

[krawhitham]

129. Just make it "well regulated"

[mike_c]

131. yes

I'm almost 70 and have never owned guns. So, having lived my whole life without guns I conclude that they're unnecessary, a modern death fetish. Repealing the second amendment would make the country a far safer place. I haven't yet heard any compelling arguments to the contrary. I'd go further and replace the second amendment with strict criminal penalties for civilian gun ownership, and for using any gun in the commission of crimes. We are awash in guns. The only credible plan for getting guns off our streets is to get those who insist on having them off our streets!

[MichMan]

138. Except there are already current penalties against gun violence

I'd go further and replace the second amendment with strict criminal penalties for civilian gun ownership, and for using any gun in the commission of crimes."

Don't we already have strict criminal penalties on the books for using a gun in the commission of a crime?

[mike_c]

144. apparently not strict enough

I mean, if enforcement of current laws doesn't make change, then the current laws are ineffective. The solutions are obvious: either better enforcement of current laws or better laws-- or both-- are needed.

[TexasDem69]

155. How about 20 years minimum for any crime involving a gun

That would certainly drive up our prison population.

[yagotme]

173. Current laws would be effective,

if they were actually used, not plead down.

[yagotme]

171. This is really meaningless:

I'm almost 70 and have never owned guns. So, having lived my whole life without guns I conclude that they're unnecessary

I'm almost 60. I have never owned a city bus. So, having lived my whole life without a city bus I conclude that they're unnecessary.

[EX500rider]

183. Yeah that is up there with "I've never needed seatbelts" or a fire extinguisher as proof of anything

[yagotme]

186. "I don't need it, so you don't, either."

Smacks of something, not quite sure what...

[Stuart G]

318. Repealing the second amendment would make the country a far safer place............also:

We are awash in guns. The only credible plan for getting guns off our streets is to get those who insist on having them off our streets!

[Elessar Zappa]

136. Sure, as long as it's understood that we'd lose for the next twenty years.

No, I’m not in favor of removing it, what I have a problem with is the way idiot judges have interpreted the amendment to give any asshole the ability to own weapons that can kill multitudes in mere seconds.

[Hekate]

141. Sure. What kind of question is that? It has come to reinforce a streak of sheer madness in our national psyche.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

142. Yes.

It won't happen, tho.

I think there's too much money and too much corruption and too many empty, soulless people in the world and the US, and nothing can or will change that.

But nobody gives a flying fig what I think.

[TexasDem69]

153. This thread isn't going as the OP thought it might

At best there’s a split of opinion on DU about repealing the 2d. How do we think the general public feels?

[NickB79]

176. See post 162

Over half of all US households have a gun now.

General public seems to be solidly on the pro-gun side.

[In It to Win It]

154. Yes, or least, adding another amendment that clearly allows for regulation

[EX500rider]

184. Regulations are allowed now

It is commonly asserted that the United States has more than 20,000 gun laws on the books at local, state and federal levels.

[In It to Win It]

204. Well, that's being tested very heavily at the moment.

[TexasDem69]

156. Let's assume the 2d Amendment is repealed

What changes would you make to gun ownership? It seems like it would be up to the individual states to determine.

[ecstatic]

158. only if every last magat & rw thug is stripped of their arsenal

As long as they remain armed up, I need for at least one person on my team to be similarly armed.

[Fla_Democrat]

159. Not just No.....

I think you can guess the rest.

[hydrolastic]

160. Its an amendment, It can be amended.

I have only said this in my shop a couple of times. To disastrous result. These people can't be asked they must be told.

[yagotme]

174. Yes, it CAN be amended.

However, the numbers will probably never be in favor of that.

[NickB79]

162. Over half the households in the US now have a gun

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll-gun-ownership-reaches-record-high-american-electorate-rcna126037

And Democrats and POC are arming up as rapidly as Republicans:

This month, 66% of Republican voters surveyed say that they or someone in their household owns a gun, while just 45% of independents and 41% of Democrats say the same.

In 2004, a March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 57% of Republicans said that they or someone in their household owned a gun, while just 41% of independents and 33% of Democrats said the same.

In August 2019, 53% of white voters said that they or someone in their household owned a gun, and 24% of Black voters said the same.

This month, 56% of white voters report that they or someone in their household owns a gun and 41% of Black voters say the same, – a 17-point increase among that group in just four years.

It's obvious that repealing the 2nd Amendment isn't just a minority opinion across Americans in general, but even among Democrats and Independents.

So I'm a solid NO.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

201. Im friends with a guy with a ffl and small gun store

He says for the past 6-7 years, the overwhelming majority of new gun owners that come into his shop are women or minorities. So much so that he shifted his stock to match the demand. Hunting rifles and shotguns sit forever now so he keeps a minimal number on hand. Semi auto hand guns, pistol caliber rifles, and semi auto rifles and shotguns are the big sellers now. The number of women buying handguns for concealed carry is high enough that they run a women's only training class every couple weeks.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

164. Yes

[MineralMan]

166. Given the extreme difficulty of passing any constitutional amendment,

that's not something I think about at all. It's not going to happen.

[Hangingon]

168. No

[Runningdawg]

180. No. I could however see it edited for today.

We have a standing army now, there is no need for any type of militias. We should have a right to bear arms but with PLENTY of infringement.

[Mike Nelson]

185. No...

... we need people who can look out how the country has grown, and can understand words like "militia" and "well-regulated" properly.

[AllaN01Bear]

189. i would rather have them read the whole thing in total and expanded to ban war weapons .

[yagotme]

192. You know, when the 2d was written, it was meant for the militia to be REQUIRED

to have "war weapons"? That was kinda the main point.

[EX500rider]

309. Indeed

In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense".

[angrychair]

195. Absolutely

Wouldn't even miss it. Practically speaking it wouldn't change things for most people. Not having the 2nd Ad didn't make guns illegal, it just means we can finally get actual gun control measures, get red flag laws and hold gun manufacturers accountable.

Sadly, the last thing we want is a constitutional convention. Republicans hold control on to many state legislatures. They would run the table on us and radically re-write the Constitution to turn the US into a theocracy that would make Iran or Afghanistan look like Disneyland in comparison.

[CTyankee]

197. YES! Somebody give me ONE good reason NOT TO!

I'm listening...

[TexasDem69]

199. Because a clear majority of Americans oppose

1 in 5 favor repeal, and only 39% of Democrats according to this 2018 poll (yes, a bit dated but doubt there’s been much change. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/
Can you point me to a single politician who advocates repealing the 2d Amendment?

[CTyankee]

405. Because the issue of repealing the amendment has never been the focus of the debate. Certainly, I would if I had a

chance, but this is not the question before the people of the U.S. It is usually framed more specifically in terms of the limits of the amendment. You've offered one article discussing out and out repeal, not the more usual question centered on limiting it to what kinds of guns, what kinds of circumstances are they used, and limiting those who should not be given permits.

[yagotme]

409. Re-read title of OP.

Removal (repeal) IS the discussion topic here.

[hack89]

200. No Nt

[Happy Hoosier]

205. No. But I do favor...

… significant limitations being added.

[Maru Kitteh]

207. Yes. nt

[flvegan]

210. To date, 209 responses to this...question.

It's brought about a good bit of discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

[Shrek]

217. No. I would rephrase it to remove any reference to a militia.

That part seems to cause confusion.

"Neither Congress nor any state shall make any law restricting the right of a citizen or a legal resident of the United States to own firearms and to bear them for any lawful purpose."

[Raine]

227. No, absolutely not. nt

[quaker bill]

230. I would prefer something else

an amendment that expressly provides government the right to regulate the ownership or possession of any and all firearms as deemed necessary for public safety. Removing the second only eliminates the right to keep and bear, but does not provide government the power to restrict same.

[MaryMagdaline]

232. Yes

[mvd]

246. I would. It is outdated anyway and creates confusion

I think it may be hard to ban guns in this country but we at least need common sense restrictions.

[yagotme]

400. What restrictions do you recommend, that we currently don't have?

[roamer65]

238. Given the chance of Dump stealing the election in 2024, not right now.

[ShazzieB]

356. If Trump was to win the 2024 election, we'll all be dead ducks anyway.

Literally for some and in terms of having rights ripped away from us for all.

The idea of private gun owners being able to successfully oppose him is laughable. He'll have the entire United States Military at his command to put down any rebellions. Anyone not killed in the process of fighting tyranny will be imprisoned, if not executed. That's how totalitarian regimes work.

Whatever one thinks about the 2nd amendment, it'll be out the window with the rest of the Constitution on January 20, 2025, if he wins.

[roamer65]

396. The military will fracture.

Or stage a coup d’etat.

But it will not all be behind him.

[Quixote1818]

241. In a perfect world yes, but currently it would be a loosing issue and might cause 10,000 Ruby Ridges. nt

[MistakenLamb]

244. No, I love shooting pigeons and targets plus I have dangerous wildlife around my home and I know lots of hunters

Guns have practical uses for recreational, hunting and protection. I am in favor of regulation, licensing and limiting types of guns and who can access them.

[Sky Jewels]

251. Absolutely

It has been a curse on this nation and we don’t need it for militias anymore.

[SalamanderSleeps]

256. Maybe we should make gun ownership a privilege instead of a right.

However, if we start missing school shootings we can always change it back.


The Second Amendment was meant to assist slavery.

It never should have been a feature of the Constitution.


No one on planet earth actually needs a .50 cal Desert Eagle - unless they are an asshole.

[brush]

259. No, just a clarification of the founding father's intent...

that a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is made clear to the nation that that clause's meaning, because there was no standing army then is meant to be permanently coupled with "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" phrase.

It must be clarified that every bozo with the funds can't plop down the money and buy easily-converted-to-automatic-fire military assault weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute and blast to smithereens innocent human flesh.

It needs to be made clear that the founding father's were referring to a militia bearing state of the art weapons then that were muzzle-loading muskets that could fire at best one round in two minutes, not the present day Uzis or converted AR-15s capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute.

[yagotme]

262. Wrong in so many ways...

because there was no standing army then

Did you even try to look this up before you wrote it? The Continental Army was founded in 1775. BOR ratified in 1791. 16 years.

2d A:

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.

Your "quote":

"...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

You missed "of the people" in your quote. I'd say that that was more of a connection...

"easily-converted-to-automatic-fire military assault weapons "

Define "easily converted" please. Most aren't "easily converted" without some precise machine shop work.

It needs to be made clear that the founding father's were referring to a militia bearing state of the art weapons then that were muzzle-loading muskets that could fire at best one round in two minutes, not the present day Uzis or converted AR-15s capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute.

You're really saying 2 different things in this section. "...militia bearing state of the art weapons then that were muzzle-loading muskets". Yes, they wanted the most current, up-to-date weapons system at the time. "...not the present day Uzis or converted AR-15s...". If they wanted the best weapons of that time, then of course they would want the best systems of this time. Bet they would have paid good money to get their hands on some AR-15's back then. And not necessarily the "converted" ones, either.

[brush]

265. And blah, blah, blah. Way to entirely miss the point of my post...

which of course is the the state of the art weapons when the Second Amendment was written were muzzle-loading single-fire, one round every two minutes or so, not the hundreds of rounds a minute weapons possible today.

It's well known that the Founding Fathers had a fear of standing armies. The Constitution was written in 1787, and the Bill of Right, which included the 2nd Amendment, was added in 1789 and included the 2nd Amendment pertaining to a militia of citizen soldiers to be called up if necessary to defend the free state with their state-of-the-art, muzzle loading muskets of the day.

The unclear wording of the 2nd is still an issue to this day as evidenced by your post, but it certainly didn't foresee nor intend weapons in the hands of run-of-the-mill bozos running around with weapons capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute.

[yagotme]

266. Blah, blah, blah, missing points:

which of course is the the state of the art weapons when the Second Amendment was written were muzzle-loading sinble fire, one round every two minutes or so, not the hundreds of rounds a minute weapons possible today.

Yep. You missed this point. The army of the time, wanted to use the best weapons of the time. If they had a source for a highly improved weapons system, I'm sure they would have been more than happy to have it. BTW, there was a rotating barrel cannon developed in the early 1700's. Didn't always work well, but they WERE trying to increase technology, and increase rates of fire. Therefore, your premise that they didn't foresee rapid firing weapons in the future wouldn't be correct.

but it certainly didn't foresee nor intend weapons in the hands of run-of-the-mill bozos running around with weapons capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute.

Crystal ball, much? How do YOU know what they foresaw? They didn't foresee cell phones and computers, but the 1st A still applies, yes? Maybe they foresaw more than you think...

(BTW, the "blah blah blah thing is a little condescending, isn't it. Maybe you should try something else.

[brush]

323. Heehee. You stick to your guns I see, which certainly aren't...

what American citizen soldiers had available to them when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written...including, or perhaps not including, the rotating barrel cannon that did not always work. Why would you even mention something that didn't always work?

Anyway, as far as what the Founding Fathers thought, the Frist Amendment's five freedoms...speech, religion, assembly, the press, and the right to redress grievances still apply as they are universal rights that should apply to human beings everywhere. Kudos to them. but curiously they didn't include Black people and women who they viewed as their property, and white, male propery owners where their point of perspective. Whaddya know about that?

The founding father's wisely, even with their limited poinf of perspective, went with what was reality at the time, and that was muzzle-loading muskets. Can't blame them, how could they foresee Black people and women voting even? Why, who'd-a-thunk such a thing? Even Jefferson, one of the more forward thinking ones didn't free his enslaved until he died, even though he thorougly enjoyed the pleasures of the flesh with his Black, enslaved mistress, Sally Hemings (incidentally there's good info here, and even an illustration of her at this link: https://www.google.com/search?channel=frs&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sally+hemings.

[yagotme]

326. Why mention it? Technology advances over time, and improves.

The basic problem with the Puckle gun was it's somewhat unreliable flintlock ignition system. This was solved in the 1800's with metallic self-contained cases. Do you think the colonists would have used AR-15's, if available, or not?

1st Amendment: "still apply as they are universal rights that should apply to human beings everywhere." Even with computers? Computers weren't thought of then, so they don't fall under the 1st A, right? Just like "assault weapons" under the 2d. Glad you could clear that up.

curiously they didn't include Black people and women who they viewed as their property, and white, male proper(t)y owners where their point of perspective.

Correct. And when "we" realized the injustice, "we" corrected it. Amazingly, they did it without having to change the BOR. Whaddya know about that?

Can't blame them, how could they foresee Black people and women voting even? Why, who'd-a-thunk such a thing?

Perhaps they did foresee it. Otherwise, why use "the people" so often???

Even Jefferson, one of the more forward thinking ones didn't free his enslaved until he died,

Would have to look it up, but I believe that he wasn't allowed to do so under current law. Only could be freed upon his death.

[brush]

330. Glad you think all that was cleared up despite magats...

disenfranchising people with fake elector votes as recently as 2020.

Realiy has a way of hitting reality deniers in the face.

[yagotme]

332. I mention computers as falling under the 1st Amendment, and you come back with 2020 election.

My post:

1st Amendment: "still apply as they are universal rights that should apply to human beings everywhere." Even with computers? Computers weren't thought of then, so they don't fall under the 1st A, right? Just like "assault weapons" under the 2d. Glad you could clear that up.

I fail to see your connection, and you obviously didn't see mine.

[brush]

341. Computers and what's written on them IMO are covered by...

the First's freedom of speech, as well as the Fourth Amendment's promise of security in peoples' person, papers and effects...and so on:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things

...

The 15th guaranteed American citizens right to vote and not be disenfranchised as trump's magats tried to do with their fake electors.

The 19 early in the last century belatedly guaranteed the right of women to not be disenfranchised.

The founding documents...the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, plus the Declaration of independance are beautiful and profound statements on the rights of man (they of course inspired France's "Declarration of the Right's of Man" a few years later, and they drew from the "Magna Carta" of centuries earlier).

I just wish the rights they promise were always strickly enforced, especially by Congress, LEO agencies and everyday citizens towards each other.

[yagotme]

343. Per your view on modern firearms, computers CAN NOT be under the 1st.

The founders couldn't foresee them, and they aren't listed in the amendment. You can't use your computer to communicate, go on message boards, write your congressperson, etc. After all, the colonists didn't have them, nor should you. THEY WEREN'T CONCEIVED OF, per you.

I just wish the rights they promise were always stricklu enforced, especially by Congress, LEO agencies and everyday citizens towards each other.

Like the 2d? Or, is it still "special"? The BOR is what the govt CAN'T do, remember. It's the freedoms of the populace.

[brush]

348. I never said compters had anything to do with firearms. What's written on them...

is cover by the First Amendment's "freedom of speech" and the Fourth's "security in the peoples' "person, papers and effects...."

[yagotme]

351. Well, let's try this again:

What computers are to the 1st, modern arms are to the 2d. If you believe that modern arms should be restricted/banned, therefore, computers would fall under the same reasoning. Being secure in your papers means they can take your flash drive, whenever they want, because a flash drive is not paper. Do you follow now???

[brush]

359. What's written on computers is freedom of speech...

which endures and it's guaranteeds in writings don't change. The Second Amendment meaning, though not clearly written and needing clarification, shouldn't change the intent of the FF's intent that a well-regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be imfringed.

Well-regulated militia's rights to bear arms should not be infringed being the key phrase...not every Tom, Dick and Harry, not well-regulated militia, running around bearing military-grade, automatic weapons becauce technology evolved and now it's possilbe for these non-military assholes who can't get a driver's license yet, can buy them on the open market.

No, that's not what the FFs intended and it shouldn't be possible now. Only the military/LEOs pls.

[yagotme]

360. You have left out part of the amendment:

a well-regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be imfringed.

That statement does not appear in the 2d in that fashion. You missed "the people". The rights of the people shall not be infringed, not the militia. Here:

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.

About the 4th or 5th time I've had to c/p this today. Seems like a lot of people here have never read the whole amendment, in order.

[brush]

365. If I left out a couple of words it wasn't intended. I take it though...

you agree that military-grade, atomatic-fire assault weapons should be the purview of the military and LEO agencies only?

Home protection shotguns and pistols ok, and rifles for sport without the harge capacity magazines please.

[yagotme]

368. Full auto weapons are currently heavily regulated by the US govt.

Class III FFL, Form 4, LEO, military. Most states allow purchase of full auto arms by civilians, going through the BATFE. I have no problem with this, as there almost NO cases of lawfully owned full autos being used in crime. If this is your actual definition of "assault weapon", we're good. If you are including semi auto only copies, then we're not.

If I left out a couple of words it wasn't intended.

It was just a curious combination of the words you left out, and the words you substituted in. Seemed to be a "militia only" argument, the way you had it phrased/cropped.

[brush]

370. Seems we're sort of on the same page. Seems full-automatice weapons...

Last edited Tue Dec 12, 2023, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

difficult to get licensed for, I'm for bringing back the assault weapons ban of the '90s. I similar measure was adopted in Australian and mass shooting there just about ceased.

My reason for this is there are inexpensive devices that can easily convert AR-15s and the like to automatic fire. The 2017 Las Vegas shooter used such a device and killed nearly 60 people.

[yagotme]

372. Terms are confusing, sometimes on purpose:

I'm for bringing back the assault weapons ban of the '90s

This was a ban on semi auto arms. Not full auto. (Mostly cosmetic bans.)

My reason for this is there are inexpensive devices that can easily convert AR-15s and the like to automatic fire.

If you're referring to the bump stock in LV, that's not "really" full auto fire. The regs have gone back and forth on this, but the machinery inside the rifle is still semi auto. The stock allows the rifle to recoil slightly back, and it has a ledge behind the trigger, so the recoil of the weapon back and forth against the trigger finger is what releases the sear. Kinda one of those "It is, but it ain't" things. Right now, there is a bump stock ban, and you'll NEVER guess who did it. (Hint: prior to 2021.)

Australia info:
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Mass shootings down, mass killings still taking place.

[mvd]

416. Me too

It seemed to be working. Also background checks should be strengthened and universal, and if cars have licenses, why not for owning guns.

[SYFROYH]

378. FYI: Trained Revolutionary War era infantry reloaded muskets 2-3x per minute.

At least once per minute with trickier rifles.

It doesn't change the point you're trying to make, but I thought you'd like to know.

How fast could a Revolutionary War soldier reload?
A well-trained soldier could generally fire and reload a flintlock weapon three times a minute, whereas the American long rifle required a more tightly loaded bullet and generally took a minute to load and fire a single shot.

https://www.vintageisthenewold.com/game-pedia/how-fast-could-a-soldier-reload-a-musket#:~:text=How%20fast%20could%20a%20Revolutionary,and%20fire%20a%20single%20shot.

[bucolic_frolic]

277. Very impractical idea. Who's going to enforce it? /nt

[budkin]

281. Absolutely

Private citizens were never meant to own guns.

[EX500rider]

312. What makes you say that?

Right after the Bill of Rights passed were firearms then confiscated or only allowed if you were in the Militia?

By the way according to US law, Militia Act of 1903:

The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

[yagotme]

401. Wrong. Not just wrong, totally wrong.

Private citizens were never meant to own guns.

Crack open a history book of early American history. Lexington and Concorde ring a bell? NOT army, but militia was there. Militia was comprised of local citizens, not uniformed army. They were to provide their OWN weapons and accoutrements. So, the 2d, referencing the "militia", along with the phrase "the people bearing arms", means the general populace was allowed to have guns in their private possession.

[Stuart G]

286. THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS DISCUSSION IS WHAT NIYAD POSTED... IT IS POSTED BELOW:

Post by niyad in another forum:

Day 341 of the year. Mass shootings* SO FAR: 567. Dead: 685. Wounded: 2,294.

Would you want one of those ........Dead ....to be your friend, wife/husband, brother or sister, mother or father?

[totodeinhere]

292. No. We people may need that right if Trump wins the election

and becomes a dictator. At that point our only recourse might be armed resistance against the tyrant.

[Stuart G]

305. WHAT IF YOUR SIBLING, OR CLOSEST FRIEND WAS SHOT & KILLED BY TOTAL STRANGER

......ON A GUN SHOOTING RAMPAGE? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL THEN?

or your husband, wife and all your children were shot and killed by a gun owner on a ...RAMPAGE?

[totodeinhere]

308. I would be extremely unhappy if any of those things happened.

But in spite of current gun violence the chances that any close relative or friend of mine could be killed by a gun are still very slim. Whereas the chance that Trump will try to make himself a dictator is probably a given and if that happens we will have to have the means to fight back against him anyway we can. Otherwise we will lose our democracy forever.

[Aussie105]

314. We put seat belts in cars to protect people.

We put airbags in cars to protect people.

I guess protecting people is seen as important in the motoring industry.

The same needs to be applied to guns.

People who should have guns:
Police.
Military.
Civilians with a legitimate purpose - farmers with a vermin problem for instance.

Anyone without a legit reason and just wants one for 'protection', can go jump.
Buy some better locks for your home, some video cameras, an alarm system.

[MichMan]

377. Who is empowered to decide what constitutes a legitimate purpose?

[yagotme]

381. So, does your next to last sentence apply to cars, as well?

Nobody "needs" a car that goes over 70, but if you want one, you can "go jump". Or, a big crossover, when you only have 2 kids. Etc. And buying better locks, video cameras, and an alarm system doesn't help you when you leave the perimeter of your home.

[Ocelot II]

317. It doesn't matter what we are in favor of; the 2nd Amendment (which has 2 Ns, not 3)

isn't going anywhere. It will not be repealed in our lifetimes or in our universe. And even if it were, nothing would change because there are more guns than people in this country, and too many people attach a totemic importance to them. Owning a gun means you're a member of the manly cult of "patriotism," not that you actually need a gun, especially not a military-type weapon. As long as that mentality exists we will not achieve reasonable gun control.

[Aussie105]

321. Fair enough.

If you really want to stick to the modern convoluted interpretation of the second amendment, if you really think you carrying a gun makes your trips outside your home safer, carry on as you are.

Lots of people in America, a few hundred deaths by guns every year is the price of Freedom, owning guns is Patriotic and Manly, etc.
(Last sentence sponsored by the gun industry and NRA.)

America is at war. In Europe, the Middle East, and possibly in the very street you live.

Enjoy!

Just make sure the gun in the glovebox of your car has the safety on.
And the ones you have at home. Secure from little fingers?
If you get stopped by the police while driving, make sure your empty hands are clearly visible. He's going to assume you are armed, so don't make any sudden moves. He's not going to take any chances, he'd like to go home in one piece at the end of his shift.

Don't forget, you effectively live in a war zone.

[Hekate]

325. And again, I say Yes. This is madness. This contributes to our unacknowledged civil war.

[yagotme]

327. We're in a shooting civil war? Who's side are we on? Who's the enemy?nt

[Hekate]

339. It's the people with arsenals against all the rest of us. From babies in preschools to old people dancing...

From young people dancing to folks in any house of worship praying and opening their hearts to the stranger in their midst. All of us just going about our lives.

There is a streak of madness and hate running through American culture, and I have lived long enough to watch it burst into poisonous bloom, every petal a bullet.

I have lived long enough to experience duck & cover drills — growing up knowing that at least the Enemy was outside our borders. To watch the drills go away with the fall of the Soviet Union.

And I have lived long enough to watch us turn on ourselves, and to create an Enemy inside our borders, such that the smallest schoolchild is now taught “active shooter drills” — which are no more protective than “duck & cover,” except that the Enemy is right here and right now, and schoolchildren from K - 12 are shredded to unrecognizability by weapons designed for use on the battlefield. “We’ll need to use DNA to ID them all” has become a thing.

Pogo was right all along. “We have met the Enemy, and he is Us.”

[yagotme]

342. So, no one in the Democratic party have guns or "arsenals"?

I believe you would be surprised...

[Hekate]

344. Do you feel you need an arsenal? In case of need are you planning to arm your friends & neighbors?

Stand at the barricades of your gated community beating back the hordes? Until that day do you keep your arsenal locked in a special armory like a real state militia?

Or is it all ad hoc?

Nothing actually “surprises” me — except this entire thread belongs in The Gungeon, not GD.

[yagotme]

346. I have seen police "layouts" of "arsenals".

Sometimes it's 4 or 5 guns, and a handful of magazines. Then they throw out some knives, ammo, you know, to make it look like a bigger deal. Perhaps we should first define the word "arsenal".

[mzmolly]

331. On second thought, yes. Dealing with the revisionist idiots in this thread

has led me to believe, there is no other option.

[Demsrule86]

335. I would. Gun ownership is not a right...SCOTUS got it wrong...a well armed militia is

not an individual. There is no nor should there be a right to gun ownership.

[yagotme]

338. Then, please, define "the people" as it appears in the 2d.

(It's in 2 or 3 other amendments, too, so be careful.)

[Demsrule86]

336. I would. Gun ownership is not a right...SCOTUS got it wrong...a well armed militia is

not an individual. There is no nor should there be a right to gun ownership.

[Hekate]

345. You asked in good faith, I believe, but -- ah well, deletion of this post is my friend

[NNadir]

347. Yes. It's a horrid anachronism.

[DUar17]

355. It will be committing political suicide

It will be committing political suicide if they try to remove it, just like trying to cut S.S.

Yes I do believe the 2nd Ammendment is out of control and needs to be better control over who wants to purchase guns.

[CTyankee]

376. Yes. I would remove it. Maybe have an asterisk in its place with a succinct explanation. No longer applicable.

[Initech]

379. No, I just want to remove the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" part.

It's way past time to start infringing, because the gun nuts are abusing their privilege and getting people killed in large numbers needlessly on an almost daily basis.

[pansypoo53219]

392. id be fine if the gun nuts could only have 1778 muskets.

[TexasDem69]

394. And everyone uses a printing press

Instead of the internet to spread their opinions. Seems equivalent, right?

[pansypoo53219]

397. less facebook, twitter would be fine. go outside. read a book.

[yagotme]

402. So, we have you down on the side of banning computers and phones. nt

[pansypoo53219]

428. no. but it does seem to increase stupidity. and hate.

[yagotme]

429. The stupidity and hate were always there.

Modern devices just allow for a more rapid transit of it.

[pansypoo53219]

430. but gains in strength under bad people like Q making more qdiots. sigh.

i will stick to PBS,NPR, + on this day.

[jcgoldie]

395. absofuckinglutely.

.

[Fla_Democrat]

424. Yeesh, this is still going on?

It has more legs than what I expected, but still....

[Timewas]

427. NO

Never happen for starters, what would be next??