• 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
bigred said:
1 - Not sure what you're looking for there. Can you be more specific? We were taught the basics of shooting (stance etc), how to take apart, clean, and put the weapon back together, but above all, yeah, safety first. duh. There really wasn't a need to "enforce" it because it was never questioned. Why would it be?

2 - No. And the answer is the same for most people in the military FYI.

My question is what is the point of these questions? Did you hope to expose how the military doesn't stress safety with guns or something?
Click to expand...

Thanks as well. The responses so far indicate quite the opposite of this. Which I think is very good news.
 
bigred said:
1 - Not sure what you're looking for there. Can you be more specific? We were taught the basics of shooting (stance etc), how to take apart, clean, and put the weapon back together, but above all, yeah, safety first. duh. There really wasn't a need to "enforce" it because it was never questioned. Why would it be?

2 - No. And the answer is the same for most people in the military FYI.

My question is what is the point of these questions? Did you hope to expose how the military doesn't stress safety with guns or something?
Click to expand...

It does seem like an odd question. I did not serve in the military, but I'm old enough to remember when the NRA promoted safety with guns, back when I was a Boy Scout. Once upon a time, that was one of their big things. Always do this, never do that. There are abundant arguments for gun control, but the problem is social, not mechanical.
 
the military provides training on range and firing safety, but they don't really cover storage and firearms in the home at all, not really in their scope. much needed for anyone who owns one imo
 
My post above has an error. I was in Navy boot camp in 1983. I retired from the Navy in 2003. :)
 
No on the poll, but only because my neighbors become dangerously crazy every time gun legislation is even brought up. I'm no gun nut, myself. If Dems could give up that one little notion, they might have a chance of getting more than 20% of the vote in rural areas. Guns are sometimes kind of useful out here... not just a hobby or a paranoid fantasy like they are for the suburbanites.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Given the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for a milita. Is the answer not to limit gun ownership to those serving in the militia. In the UK that would be the territorial army. Not sure if the US have an equivalent but basically those signing up would have regular training and would undertake public service functions and where necessary be sent abroad with regular troops to protect the USA.

I would have sympathy with some of the arguments if the text said:-

Shooting holes in bits of paper, being necessary to the security of a free State...... or

Culling wild animals, being necessary to the security of a free State..... or

Defending personal property, being necessary to the security of a free State....
Click to expand...

To quickly and easily lay this line of thinking to rest, the entire US population IS the "Militia".
 
Manopolus said:
No on the poll, but only because my neighbors become dangerously crazy every time gun legislation is even brought up. I'm no gun nut, myself. If Dems could give up that one little notion, they might have a chance of getting more than 20% of the vote in rural areas. Guns are sometimes kind of useful out here... not just a hobby or a paranoid fantasy like they are for the suburbanites.
Click to expand...

I get that. I live among the gun nuts as well.

But this isn't really the question. I don't support a ban on firearms. But I do support common sense firearms laws. Like prohibiting children, felons and the mentally ill from owning firearms.

Unfortunately the NRA and gun nuts oppose any kind of regulations and the biggest obstacle is the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I get that. I live among the gun nuts as well.

But this isn't really the question. I don't support a ban on firearms. But I do support common sense firearms laws. Like prohibiting children, felons and the mentally ill from owning firearms.

Unfortunately the NRA and gun nuts oppose any kind of regulations and the biggest obstacle is the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Any felony, and for all time? There must be some felonies that even though a person is convicted for one, after a period of clean living (say, a decade) there should be no problem granting a gun license.

Or perhaps that's what pardons are for?
 
Blue Mountain said:
Any felony, and for all time? There must be some felonies that even though a person is convicted for one, after a period of clean living (say, a decade) there should be no problem granting a gun license.

Or perhaps that's what pardons are for?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But I would argue the second amendment prevents even addressing the question at all. It's OK to take away a felons right to vote but gof forbid we prevent access to a deadly weapon?
 
Blue Mountain said:
Any felony, and for all time?
Click to expand...

Yes. Anyone in the U.S. convicted of any felony is prohibited from possessing any firearm or any ammunition for life, with one exception:

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) provides:
"Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly [or implicitly as a matter of state law] provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."
Click to expand...

https://www.nvp.uscourts.gov/superv...ions/#:~:text=18 U.S.C.,to 10 years in prison.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
To quickly and easily lay this line of thinking to rest, the entire US population IS the "Militia".
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

The concept of everyone being the militia comes from a federal law designating males between 17 and 45 as an unorganized militia. This law was passed to justify the draft.

So, by the law, if you are a woman, you are not the militia.
If you are older than 45 or younger than 17, you are not the militia.

More importantly, if you are the "unorganized" militia, you are not well regulated.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
To quickly and easily lay this line of thinking to rest, the entire US population IS the "Militia".
Click to expand...

If you were right "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" woul be otiose and the law makers would have just written "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

They instead gave an aim of the law. Today it is clear that aim has not been met. Seems to me that the choices are,

Create a well regualted militia who provide security to the US and limit gun ownership to them or
Don't have a miliata in which canse the rights are no longer needed.

The first option is the only one that retains the 2nd amendment as intended. The second option removes the amendment and allows Americans to take a sensible decsion on gun ownership that doesn't rely on an outdated intetion.
 
This article explains the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, who the militia were, what its purpose was, how it differs from the "well-regulated" militia, and who the militia is today.

Originally, the militia comprised all citizens who could be called up to be part of the well-regulated militia. Today, the well-regulated militia is termed the "organized militia," which comprises the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide a pool of armed citizens who could be called up if ever it were necessary to form a well-regulated (organized) militia.
 
jt512 said:
This article explains the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, who the militia were, what its purpose was, how it differs from the "well-regulated" militia, and who the militia is today.

Originally, the militia comprised all citizens who could be called up to be part of the well-regulated militia. Today, the well-regulated militia is termed the "organized militia," which comprises the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide a pool of armed citizens who could be called up if ever it were necessary to form a well-regulated (organized) militia.
Click to expand...

Interesting short article for Heritage Foundation, that is generally considered a conservative outlet.

I disagree that National Guard is the only qualified militia. There a a lot of people out there who are trying to form their own regulated militia, just in case elections don't go their way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom