• 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.

How would you amend the second amendment?

Skepticemea said:
A gun seems a strange thing to invest an idea of "country" or "freedom" in but I admit I'm not best placed to understand that. Britain has wars and old biddies with big old houses and corgis, so what do I know?
Click to expand...
Try looking at it this way. To have freedom, you have to have your life. The ability to defend your life is held as fairly sacrosanct here. Guns are one tool to that end.

We could endless quibble about whether guns are effective in that way, and whether it is worth the trade off (and let's not argue about that, please!), but does that make the connection between freedom, self determination, and guns clearer?
 
BenBurch said:
The right of the people to own small arms capable of expending a maximum of 3000 Joules per second for a maximum of ten seconds, and firing solid metallic rounds with a full metal jacket, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
You would outlaw hollow points? Why? I wouldn't use anything but hollow points for home defense, full metal jacket is far more likely to pass through your target to hit who-knows-what beyond. That's why police typically use hollow points.

Also more humane for hunting, as it injures less and kills more.
 
WildCat said:
You would outlaw hollow points? Why? I wouldn't use anything but hollow points for home defense, full metal jacket is far more likely to pass through your target to hit who-knows-what beyond. That's why police typically use hollow points.

Also more humane for hunting, as it injures less and kills more.
Click to expand...

Well, the idea is that most urban thugs seldom hit the person they aim at, and the bystander ought to be hit with a less lethal round. And my .45 with solid rounds will stop a human at home defense range without any doubt.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
For those who would want to, of course.

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.

Or will anyone make the interesting argument that it actually compatible with gun control laws?
Click to expand...
I'd like it to read as an actual sentence, so its interpretation is unambiguous.

Depending on what it is supposed to mean, it could read, for example:

"Largely because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

This means that while a well-regulated militia was factored into the reasoning, the people can bear arms for whatever reason they wish.

Or how about this ?:

"For the sole purpose of 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."

Totally different rule.

There are other possibilities, too. It was a poorly-worded sentence.
 
A shotgun is the best home defense weapon. It doesn't require perfect accuracy, it doesn't penetrate walls very well, and beyond about 40 yards the lethality diminishes significantly. I understand carrying a pistol for protection away from home but around the house a shotgun is a better defensive weapon.
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
A shotgun is the best home defense weapon. It doesn't require perfect accuracy, it doesn't penetrate walls very well, and beyond about 40 yards the lethality diminishes significantly. I understand carrying a pistol for protection away from home but around the house a shotgun is a better defensive weapon.
Click to expand...
I think it would be far easier to call the police while holding a pistol on the guy you found breaking into your house. A shotgun needs 2 hands. ;)
 
WildCat said:
I think it would be far easier to call the police while holding a pistol on the guy you found breaking into your house. A shotgun needs 2 hands. ;)
Click to expand...

Try some Soldier of Fortune competitions. In one round, they made people bend down over while holding open a heavy steel plate and shooting shottie one handed.

It can be done. ;)
 
geni said:
Limit to weapons that people can show are effectively used by actual militias. So they can have all the AK-47s, sucide belts, ZU-23s and RPG-7s they like. Pistols not so much.
Click to expand...

LSSBB said:
Stun guns, lasers (eventually), a continually evolving list?
Click to expand...
That's why I said early on that a needed revision (or at least, appendix) to the Second Amendment is to define what "arms" comprise. Really, there need to be several classes with different "rights" for each.
 
Tricky said:
That's why I said early on that a needed revision (or at least, appendix) to the Second Amendment is to define what "arms" comprise. Really, there need to be several classes with different "rights" for each.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a lot of legal precedent on this. Part of why I worded my proposal as I did was to limit arms to;

1. Small Arms
2. Projectile firing (no bombs, lasers, death rays, whatnot...)
3. Less lethal rounds

By limiting energy in a time period, we exclude anything larger than a .50 long round, and we limit implicitly the size of the magazine in an auto-sear weapon that meets the energy limit.

But if you want a full-auto weapon with a 15 round clip, that probably comes in just under the wire.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
For those who would want to, of course.

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.

Or will anyone make the interesting argument that it actually compatible with gun control laws?
Click to expand...

Well, people have the right to keep and bear arms. So I would say that it will always be up to SCOTUS to interpret the scope of it and the ability of states and municipalities to restrict that right.

Registration of all fire arms would not be an infringement.
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
A shotgun is the best home defense weapon. It doesn't require perfect accuracy, it doesn't penetrate walls very well, and beyond about 40 yards the lethality diminishes significantly. I understand carrying a pistol for protection away from home but around the house a shotgun is a better defensive weapon.
Click to expand...

I find a shotgun under the pillow interferes with my social agenda.
 
BenBurch said:
Well, the idea is that most urban thugs seldom hit the person they aim at, and the bystander ought to be hit with a less lethal round. And my .45 with solid rounds will stop a human at home defense range without any doubt.
Click to expand...

Would urban thugs even bother to get HP? Perhaps they would just use plentiful and cheaper FMJ? (Is there any data on the types of ammo most commonly used in different types of crime?)
 
Giz said:
(Is there any data on the types of ammo most commonly used in different types of crime?)
Click to expand...
I doubt that criminals choose their ammo carefully, they'll just use whatever they can find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom