• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 31.0%

  • No

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • No, amend it to make possession of a gun VERY difficult with tons of background checks and psych eva

    Votes: 25 35.2%

  • I can be agent M

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Total voters
    71
Amendments 1-10 gave citizens some right. The final amendment pointed out these were all put in to limit feds from interfering in state level events. So these thing refer to states or citizens. Limiting the feds in these matters. Since states can just switch to professional militia, citizens no longer needed to carry those guns home. If they served in state militia.
https://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm
 
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle said:
No, ye just need to disapply the insane court rulings that say it means the opposite of what it says.

If the second amendment were actually applied as written the US would have one of the most restrictive gun control policies in the world.
Click to expand...

Tero said:
It does not need to be repealed. Just enforce it. Those who serve in state militia can bring guns home. All others owning guns are governed by state law.
Click to expand...

This is where I'm at. That said, after Sandy Hook, when 89%(!), I've never seen approval like that for anything ever) approved of a proposed gun bill. but NRA money still won the day, I came to realize it's a lost cause. At least in my lifetime. People will just have to rely on prayers to sky fairies for awhile more.
 
That little poll is so ill-conceived that I decline to vote in it. Point 3 runs off the track and into weedy babble. Of course the 2A should be amended, but not with yet more (and easily challenged) attempts to regulate human nature.

This has been said often already, especially by me: It's better by far to regulate the types of firearms that are legal for private ownership. Phased but relentless confiscation, authorized by a new Amendment and enabled by Federal law, would and someday will extinguish the American curse of mindless shooting to kill.
 
sackett said:
That little poll is so ill-conceived that I decline to vote in it. Point 3 runs off the track and into weedy babble. Of course the 2A should be amended, but not with yet more (and easily challenged) attempts to regulate human nature.

This has been said often already, especially by me: It's better by far to regulate the types of firearms that are legal for private ownership. Phased but relentless confiscation, authorized by a new Amendment and enabled by Federal law, would and someday will extinguish the American curse of mindless shooting to kill.
Click to expand...

China has VERY strong gun control laws.

And 13,000 murders a year.
 
Neither the people nor the Founding Fathers could even conceive of a society wherein mass shootings in schools, markets, concerts, etc. could kill hundreds of people in minutes or of the type of killing machines guns would become. So spare me what they wrote in the late 18th century.

And stop with this crap that anyone thinks a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves and their families. It's insane.
 
Stacyhs said:
Neither the people nor the Founding Fathers could even conceive of a society wherein mass shootings in schools, markets, concerts, etc. could kill hundreds of people in minutes or of the type of killing machines guns would become. So spare me what they wrote in the late 18th century.

And stop with this crap that anyone thinks a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves and their families -------WITH DEADLY FORCE------- It's insane.
Click to expand...

FTFY.

:)
 
Hercules56 said:
China has VERY strong gun control laws.

And 13,000 murders a year.
Click to expand...

lobosrul5 said:
So they have almost exactly half as many murders as the USA, with 4 times our population, making their rate 1/8th of the USA's... I'm certainly against abolishing the 2A... but your argument is not sound.
Click to expand...

I think it is nice of Herc to have provided us such a nice, large-scale example of where gun control is working.
 
sackett said:
That little poll is so ill-conceived that I decline to vote in it. Point 3 runs off the track and into weedy babble. Of course the 2A should be amended, but not with yet more (and easily challenged) attempts to regulate human nature.

This has been said often already, especially by me: It's better by far to regulate the types of firearms that are legal for private ownership. Phased but relentless confiscation, authorized by a new Amendment and enabled by Federal law, would and someday will extinguish the American curse of mindless shooting to kill.
Click to expand...

I would agree not only on types but uses, not being well represented here, because there is little if any distinction here between simply possessing some sort of a gun and packing a pistol in your pants as you walk down the street, or carrying around a carload of semi-automatic military weapons. I think the biggest flaw in the amendment is that, as the New York case suggests, it makes the same mistake of not distinguishing something that may not have needed distinguishing 250 years ago.
 
Elsewhere, I've proposed that classifying assault rifles as "destructive devices" would be a good start. The BATF regulates destructive devices, and their definitions are enforceable. Are their rules arbitrary? Yes, because you have to draw go-no go lines to make regulations work. Big deal. (E.g., rifles chambered for .50 BMG are legal, while long-osolete Finnish 20 mm L-39 anti tank rifles, the less than beloved "elephant guns" of the Continuation War, are nasty horrid Destructive Devices! and must be rigidly! controlled, poor old hunks of steel though they are.) Over time, I would hope, the classes of controlled and prohibited arms would be come less finicky and more inclusive.

Until Brother Jonathan Citizen will no longer be allowed to defend his castle and pickup with monstrous irons that kill through brick walls. His fetish for deadly force be damned.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
Elsewhere, I've proposed that classifying assault rifles as "destructive devices" would be a good start. The BATF regulates destructive devices, and their definitions are enforceable. Are their rules arbitrary? Yes, because you have to draw go-no go lines to make regulations work. Big deal. (E.g., rifles chambered for .50 BMG are legal, while long-osolete Finnish 20 mm L-39 anti tank rifles, the less than beloved "elephant guns" of the Continuation War, are nasty horrid Destructive Devices! and must be rigidly! controlled, poor old hunks of steel though they are.) Over time, I would hope, the classes of controlled and prohibited arms would be come less finicky and more inclusive.

Until Brother Jonathan Citizen will no longer be allowed to defend his castle and pickup with monstrous irons that kill through brick walls. His fetish for deadly force be damned.
Click to expand...

Assault rifles are already highly regulated by the ATF.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Neither the people nor the Founding Fathers could even conceive of a society wherein mass shootings in schools, markets, concerts, etc. could kill hundreds of people in minutes or of the type of killing machines guns would become. So spare me what they wrote in the late 18th century.

And stop with this crap that anyone thinks a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves and their families -------WITH DEADLY FORCE------- It's insane.
Click to expand...
FTFY.

:)
Click to expand...

Depends, doesn't it? An eight- year old breaks into my house to steal my Playstation. That doesn't give me the right to shoot and kill him.
 
Stacyhs said:
Depends, doesn't it? An eight- year old breaks into my house to steal my Playstation. That doesn't give me the right to shoot and kill him.
Click to expand...

What if a 25 year old breaks into your house and tries to rob you with a knife?

Is it then ok to shoot him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom