• 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
Biden is tightening up the gun show loophole requiring anyone who sells guns for a profit to have a license and do background checks on buyers.

Cue the outrage from Republicans:

You might think that this approach to increased gun safety makes perfect sense, and that it simply treats everyone equally, regardless of where they buy their gun. So, who would complain? Well, for starters, there are Republican Sens. John Cornyn, of Texas, and Thom Tillis, of North Carolina, who intend to introduce a joint resolution expressing disapproval and demanding that the new measures be overturned.
Click to expand...
Tillis has been one of the top recipients of money from the National Rifle Association over the course of his career for more than $4 million so far. Cornyn has benefited from NRA funds to the tune of almost $80,000 over his tenure; a mere pittance compared to Tillis. But Cornyn has announced his intention to run for Senate GOP leader when Mitch McConnell vacates that position. Maybe Cornyn needs to take in as much NRA money as McConnell has — reportedly more than $1 million — if he wants to curry favor with his party and the NRA. It seems like some of our elected officials believe the threat of losing NRA money is greater than the present danger of constituents’ lives lost to gun violence.
Click to expand...

Cue the NRA outrage:

“This latest Biden Administration attack on law-abiding gun owners is a blatant attempt to coerce Americans to forego legal activity with firearms under threat of potential confiscation of their lawfully acquired and constitutionally protected property,” said Randy Kozuch, the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement. “NRA is already working to use all means available to stop this unlawful rule.”
Click to expand...

Cornyn, Tillis, and Kozuch can eat mah grits.
 
The GOP and NRA are showing much more outrage over Biden's actions than they ever did over Trump's gun grab.

Ranb
 
Hercules56 said:
The 2nd Amendment gives Americans and legal residents the right to protect themselves, their families and the public with firearms from violence.

Many Americans are AGAINST this right, and feel we should not be able to defend ourselves with deadly weapons like guns.

Should we repeal this right?
Click to expand...

Just waded in, before going past the OP. And so I'm sure some repetition here.

The 2A is NOT about personal protection in any way whatsoever.

It's about maintaining readiness of a "well regulated militia" for the protection of the State against the very kind of gun nuts we have today. Written at a time of the muzzle loader, before a standing army had been dreamt of. A professional military alone renders the 2A moot.

An incredible swindle of breathtaking brazenness and brobdignagian proportions has been perpetrated upon America. The populace--or at least a noisesome plurality--has been mind-****** into completely not seeing the opening, foundational clause. Thay glibly skip over those words as though never written, jumping straight to the cherry-picked ending.

While I feel this long outdated bit of history should be repealed, I voted for amendment. Otherwise Civil War Part Two would likely kick off in that blighted land of violence.
 
Lurch said:
Just waded in, before going past the OP. And so I'm sure some repetition here.

The 2A is NOT about personal protection in any way whatsoever.

It's about maintaining readiness of a "well regulated militia" for the protection of the State against the very kind of gun nuts we have today. Written at a time of the muzzle loader, before a standing army had been dreamt of. A professional military alone renders the 2A moot.

An incredible swindle of breathtaking brazenness and brobdignagian proportions has been perpetrated upon America. The populace--or at least a noisesome plurality--has been mind-****** into completely not seeing the opening, foundational clause. Thay glibly skip over those words as though never written, jumping straight to the cherry-picked ending.

While I feel this long outdated bit of history should be repealed, I voted for amendment. Otherwise Civil War Part Two would likely kick off in that blighted land of violence.
Click to expand...

Well even it does, not like there's going to be few guns around.
 
Lurch said:
The 2A is NOT about personal protection in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Not originally, no, but the Supreme Court made it so in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Lurch said:
It's about maintaining readiness of a "well regulated militia" for the protection of the State against the very kind of gun nuts we have today. Written at a time of the muzzle loader, before a standing army had been dreamt of. A professional military alone renders the 2A moot.

An incredible swindle of breathtaking brazenness and brobdignagian proportions has been perpetrated upon America. The populace--or at least a noisesome plurality--has been mind-****** into completely not seeing the opening, foundational clause. Thay glibly skip over those words as though never written, jumping straight to the cherry-picked ending.

While I feel this long outdated bit of history should be repealed, I voted for amendment. Otherwise Civil War Part Two would likely kick off in that blighted land of violence.
Click to expand...
Heller detached the application of the right to keep and bear arms from the necessity of a well regulated militia.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Not originally, no, but the Supreme Court made it so in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Heller detached the application of the right to keep and bear arms from the necessity of a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

I continue to assert that the militia clause is a red herring. The reason you establish a right, even if it's explicit, is not the right itself. You can say that the thought of a militia is what motivated the amendment, but it is not its content, any more than stating that our rights are god-given requires a god.

The militia interpretation has repeatedly failed and will continue to do so. The amendment, vaguely worded, socially and technologically obsolete, should be replaced.
 
Lurch said:
Just waded in, before going past the OP. And so I'm sure some repetition here.

The 2A is NOT about personal protection in any way whatsoever.

It's about maintaining readiness of a "well regulated militia" for the protection of the State against the very kind of gun nuts we have today. Written at a time of the muzzle loader, before a standing army had been dreamt of. A professional military alone renders the 2A moot.

An incredible swindle of breathtaking brazenness and brobdignagian proportions has been perpetrated upon America. The populace--or at least a noisesome plurality--has been mind-****** into completely not seeing the opening, foundational clause. Thay glibly skip over those words as though never written, jumping straight to the cherry-picked ending.

While I feel this long outdated bit of history should be repealed, I voted for amendment. Otherwise Civil War Part Two would likely kick off in that blighted land of violence.
Click to expand...

To be honest, this bit is wrong. Most European countries had transitioned, as much as possible, to permanent standing armies, largely due to their experiences during the Italian and Thirty years wars. The only exeptions were countries (largely in the HRE) too small to support an army and England/Britain who had a hybrid system of a small permanent army supported in times of war with volunteer militias raised by local grandées.
 
Hercules56 said:
This is simply wrong, and the Heller decision explained why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder, hadn't actually read the details in a while. Heller actually covers that we don't need to repeal/alter 2A. The opinion spells out clearly that it is not an unlimited right, and that even in the founder's day, dangerous and unusual weaponry was prohibited. It clarifies that commercial sellers still need to be regulated. It clarifies that there are many and varied places and times that a firearm cannot be kept and borne.
 
Norman Alexander said:
That decision was an unmitigated disaster, led by arch-conservative nutcase Scalia. He has so much blood and sorrow on his hands as a result.

But that does not address the topic.
Click to expand...

Sorry but since the Heller decision, there has been no extreme or even noticeable loosening of gun laws that can be shown to have increased murder rates or gun crime rates. In fact for years after Heller murder rates kept going down, down down.
 
Well there is this

On gun violence, the United States is an outlier

Key takeaways:
--Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia and 77 times greater than in Germany.

--Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.

--Age-adjusted rates of firearm homicide are highest in Washington, DC and lowest in New Hampshire.
Click to expand...

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

Even if gun violence rates are going down, which it is not, it's still not a good place to be.
 
Tell that to people who have survived being shot, and have to live the rest of their lives in a wheelchair.

Yeah, it's pretty horrible, relatively.
 
Hercules56 said:
Sorry but since the Heller decision, there has been no extreme or even noticeable loosening of gun laws that can be shown to have increased murder rates or gun crime rates. In fact for years after Heller murder rates kept going down, down down.
Click to expand...

In fairness, the murder rate was already in a free fall at the time of the Heller decision, then continued on the downward trend for a few more years then shot back up. The rate is still higher than at the time of the Heller decision.

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/us-murder-violent-crime-rates-drop
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom