Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There is a reason why the ammo basic load is what it is for a soldier. If some idiot had told me I had to carry around 100 rounds for my individual weapon, I would have told him (or her) to take a flying leap. It doesn't take long for an individual to figure out was is a reasonable amount of weaponry (and ammo) to have on hand for any given situation. Stuck in a foxhole by yourself, with an entire company of enemy soldiers sighting in on you, brings an overwhelming desire for as much ammo as you can get along with close air support, artillery and about 2000 more soldiers on your side. Walking down the street in my little tiny hometown, I figure one magazine would be enough.

Usually one is enough and two is max, if feeling frisky go with three.-

[CSM]

No joke. I think some of those tanks measure their mileage in gallons per mile, rather than the other way around.

As I recall, the Abrams carries about 500 gal of fuel with an operating range of about 260 miles (somewhere around there) which means it gets less than 2 miles to the gallon. This brings up a good point in that some of the "arms" we talk about not being suitable for private ownership are inherently cost prohibitive to not only purchase but to maintain as well, never mind actually use. If you think ammunition is expensive for pistols/rifles/shotguns then you are really going to be upset at the cost of an artillery/tank gun round!

[ConHog]

As I recall, the Abrams carries about 500 gal of fuel with an operating range of about 260 miles (somewhere around there) which means it gets less than 2 miles to the gallon. This brings up a good point in that some of the "arms" we talk about not being suitable for private ownership are inherently cost prohibitive to not only purchase but to maintain as well, never mind actually use. If you think ammunition is expensive for pistols/rifles/shotguns then you are really going to be upset at the cost of an artillery/tank gun round!

No doubt, I shudder to think what a 120mm cannon round would cost. lol

[CSM]

No doubt, I shudder to think what a 120mm cannon round would cost. lol

Don't buy a tank if you can't afford the ammo!

This little raparte' does illustrate the point that fears of the unwashed masses running around in tanks or setting up an artillery battery in their back yard are just nonsense. Heck, even the commercially available "assault weapons" some are so concerned about are beyond many a household budget.

[ConHog]

Don't buy a tank if you can't afford the ammo!

This little raparte' does illustrate the point that fears of the unwashed masses running around in tanks or setting up an artillery battery in their back yard are just nonsense. Heck, even the commercially available "assault weapons" some are so concerned about are beyond many a household budget.

But on the other hand, there ARE people who could afford such things. And I actually argue that such is legal. Hell at one time we had pirates in the US and they had ships loaded with cannons. Now , their piracy was illegal, but their armored and armed ships were not.

[CSM]

But on the other hand, there ARE people who could afford such things. And I actually argue that such is legal. Hell at one time we had pirates in the US and they had ships loaded with cannons. Now , their piracy was illegal, but their armored and armed ships were not.

Sure, but just they fact they owned such would make their activity subject to closer scrutiny. That, plus the fact that it is awful hard to hide a battleship, privately owned or otherwise. Outlaw battleships and only criminals will have battleships!

[ConHog]

Sure, but just they fact they owned such would make their activity subject to closer scrutiny. That, plus the fact that it is awful hard to hide a battleship, privately owned or otherwise. Outlaw battleships and only criminals will have battleships!

Now wait , we're forgetting the 2nd only applies to weapons of the era, so anything more powerful than a Frigate ? Forget it.

[CSM]

Now wait , we're forgetting the 2nd only applies to weapons of the era, so anything more powerful than a Frigate ? Forget it.

Interesting, though I don't recall the 2d specifying a particular period of weapon development.

I also suspect that the 1% are interested in wasting their money on such frivolous weapons ... maybe a handfull ... but again, you have to park those things someplace! Common sense mitigates a lot of the concerns some have about unrestricted ownership of the more destructive weapons; thus my stipulation of drawing the line at crew served weapons. Not that the individual cannot own them but that reality would dictate that such ownership comes with far more consideration for allowing such ownership.

[ConHog]

Interesting, though I don't recall the 2d specifying a particular period of weapon development.

I also suspect that the 1% are interested in wasting their money on such frivolous weapons ... maybe a handfull ... but again, you have to park those things someplace! Common sense mitigates a lot of the concerns some have about unrestricted ownership of the more destructive weapons; thus my stipulation of drawing the line at crew served weapons. Not that the individual cannot own them but that reality would dictate that such ownership comes with far more consideration for allowing such ownership.

Like I said , I draw the line a little below single person weapon. Hell, there are single person weapons capable of knocking airplanes out of the sky. A private person simply does not need such weapons.

I just argue that the 2A actually prohibits the government from making them illegal.

Now I would offer an argument that under the Interstate Commerce Clause the government has the right to make the production and transportation of such weapons.

meaning the government could make them legal to own, but simply unavailable.

Would be an interesting legal battle.

[CSM]

Like I said , I draw the line a little below single person weapon. Hell, there are single person weapons capable of knocking airplanes out of the sky. A private person simply does not need such weapons.

I just argue that the 2A actually prohibits the government from making them illegal.

Now I would offer an argument that under the Interstate Commerce Clause the government has the right to make the production and transportation of such weapons.

meaning the government could make them legal to own, but simply unavailable.

Would be an interesting legal battle.

Could make for an interesting legal battle for sure. As to individual weapons with anti -air capability, I bet there a re a few Syrians, Libyians and others who wish they had such weapons and they aren't necessarily criminals! I guess a manufacturer could make weapons within a state and not export them. It occurs to me that many folks are going to walk around carrying a SAM even if they had one. The ones that would probably would get more than a passing glance from the general population too.

[glockmail]

Interesting point, a system sliding into whatever the monarch or dictator says is law IS law. Because "le roi le veult," the king wills it. Henry VIII tried it on explicitly, and got away with it, but he had a strong personality.

Louis XVI, who did not have much of a personality at all and very likely had Aspergers, also tried it.

Boy, did that not work. They guillotined him and his wife and abused the heir to death.

So it's an iffy political strategy.

Then the French allowed Napoleon to take over and did whatever he told them to, including losing a lot of wars. So it just depends on the personality of the ruler, really.


I'd say Obama doesn't have the sort of alpha male personality to carry it off.

You're too trusting of GovCo and the press that refuses to do its job and call it out for usurpations against the Constitution.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

The 2nd simply isn't adequate for the times. Not in protecting our right to own guns and not in protecting us from unlawful gun use.

The reason that the 2nd isn't adequate is that the people at large no longer hold the government to the confines of the Constitution. To rely on a superfluous, redundant sentence to be the final security for the right to arms when government has far exceeded the powers granted to it, is futile and doomed to fail. When the debate of what the right "is" can be focused on a semantics argument over what words mean, to discern what the 2nd Amendment "lets" the citizen own . . . INSTEAD of examining the Constitution to discern what the government is allowed to do . . . Well, the discussion of "rights" is moot as you are now debating the breadth of a privilege and how it is to be permitted, licensed, conditioned and qualified by bureaucrats.

We need a new amendment which does just that. I question how ANY gun control law can be ruled constitutional when the 2nd in fact says " can NOT be infringed"

I would support an amendment that when enforced as a general rule, would end all extra-constitutional power. Something that reminds all, governments and citizens alike, that the federal government only possesses the limited, expressly enumerated powers granted to it and everything else is excepted out of that grant of power and retained by the people or the states . . . Oh wait, somebody already thought of that.

accepting of course that the court has ruled that the states are bound the by the 2nd as well. Which I'm not sure I agree with that either, but more on that later.

At least when the Freedmens Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment were debated and ratified and enacted the action of the 2nd Amendment had not yet been subjected to the communitarian, government enabling, Constitution destroying cancer of the Bolshevik Revolution.

That the enforcers of the discriminatory statutes known as the Black Codes were the official militias of the states demanded federal action.

Of course Congress disbanding the state militias and trying to protect the rights (including gun rights) of former slaves, now citizens from those government agents, is lost on modern, enlightened people on the left (especially Black "civil rights activists"). They now essentially argue that the Amendment is moot and outdated and that we owe the benevolent, munificent government our complete trust, evidenced by our surrender of arms and granting government an absolute monopoly of force.

At the same, any sane person can recognize that there does need to be some form of checks allowed so that the government can provide for the safety of people. I know I know many argue that it is a person's own responsibility to protect themselves , and that is true - as far as it goes . In reality the government is also constitutionally bound to provide for the security of her citizens.

Governments at all levels claim and hold legal immunity and are not "constitutionally bound to provide for the security of her citizens". This has been enforced in statute and established by state and federal courts including SCOTUS. The only circumstance when a government entity is responsible for the safety of any citizen is in a custodial situation (e.g., child services) or when a person is in custody, AND THE ABILITY OF THE PERSON TO ACT IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE HAS BEEN DISABLED.

You have no right to feel or actually be "safe" as there is no government entity to hold responsible if you are scared or are actually harmed.

Of course you do have a right to self-defense but various governments have claimed the power to disarm you for the safety of other people (which they refuse responsibility for). Does anyone else recognize the cognitive dissonance inherent in that policy? Can anyone argue that condition is a legitimate one to enforce against a free people?

I propose that a new amendment be written that clearly identifies what we may own, and under what circumstances.

No thanks. I don't need any agent of the government to tell me what my rights are. My rights predate the Constitution and the governmental authority created by it. By the Constitution's structure, no governmental agency, elected official or bureaucrat has any legitimate import on the extent of my rights, only of laws. This also extends to the courts including SCOTUS . . . As a creation of the Constitution their duty is NOT to determine if a right exists, or its scope, or whether enforcing it will be popular or have sociological impact; their only duty and jurisdiction is to determine whether a challenged law is beyond the strictly limited, clearly defined powers delegated to the legislature.

I find especially repugnant any member of Congress pontificating on the extent of my rights or reassuring me that their proposed actions won't harm my rights. Their purview is only the creation of law at the citizen's behest, not the extent of the citizen's rights.

Their only legitimate concern regarding my rights is to not exceed the legislative authority granted to them by the Constitution . . . if the bastards could only stick to that all our rights would be safe and this discussion and innumerable ones like it would not be necessary.

The Bill of Rights is redundant; the only thing those provisions "do" is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers it was never granted.

The whole bit about militias and such can just be thrown out the window. We need no written reason to exercise our right to own firearms. Does the first supply a reason for needing the right to free speech? No, it simply states that we have that right.

And that has been the unwavering holding of SCOTUS regarding the right to arms for going on 140 years.

". . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

DC v Heller

Both you and the statist, communitarian left is on a mission to purposely ignore the Constitution and ignore the Supreme Court.

What you say you want and what the left no doubt wants to completely destroy, is already constitutional law.

It just needs to be respected and obeyed.

[Little-Acorn]

and of course some guns (or rather some gun owners) should be illegal,

Meaning, government should have the authority to ban certain people from owning guns. And that society will be safer and more prosperous if they do.

(sigh)

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to the wall.

and you don't address that at all.

I did in my second (and first) post.

Read.

Reading is key.