Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[ConHog]

now , before anyone goes crazy - on either side - here it out.

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.

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" 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 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.

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

As far as what we may own. We should be able to own anything up to and including what the Army defies as an assault rifle. That would include fully automatic weapons that utilize an intermediate sized ammunition. Sorry guys, no Ma Deuces.

The government on the other hand ought be able to set certain conditions and levy taxes on such weapons, and yes keep track of them. But not in the way you might think.

Every weapon should have to be registered with the local police department, such registration should include a photo of the gun, the serial number, and a bullet sample for forensic matching if necessary.

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .

A separate database should contain the fingerprints , picture, and identity of the registered owner of each weapon. THIS database should ONLY be accessible via a warrant obtained by probable cause . Meaning no one will EVER get access to your personal data unless one of your guns is used to commit a crime and police somewhere have enough evidence to prove specific weapon was used and get a warrant to track it back to the owner.

The penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime should be draconian in nature, and doubly so if it as unregistered weapon or one registered to someone other than yourself.

Right of ownership of a gun should not be conferred until a person reaches age 21.

States and cities SHOULD have the right to set their own laws regarding gun ownership and carry laws. If a city wishes to make guns illegal, that is their right. If you don't like it, move. That is your right.

This includes doing away with gun free zones if states wish, except of course on federal property located within the state.

Felons are absolutely , positively forbidden to own weapons and the penalty for having one should again be draconian.

NO federal law, executive order, or other federal edict shall be allowed to dictate what a state may do in regards to firearms within their borders except in the case of federal property within those borders.

The federal government retains the right to control the interstate trade of guns and may make laws pertaining to such which supersede any state laws to the contrary.












boo and hiss away lol

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

now , before anyone goes crazy - on either side - here it out.

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.

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" 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 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.

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

As far as what we may own. We should be able to own anything up to and including what the Army defies as an assault rifle. That would include fully automatic weapons that utilize an intermediate sized ammunition. Sorry guys, no Ma Deuces.

The government on the other hand ought be able to set certain conditions and levy taxes on such weapons, and yes keep track of them. But not in the way you might think.

Every weapon should have to be registered with the local police department, such registration should include a photo of the gun, the serial number, and a bullet sample for forensic matching if necessary.

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .

A separate database should contain the fingerprints , picture, and identity of the registered owner of each weapon. THIS database should ONLY be accessible via a warrant obtained by probable cause . Meaning no one will EVER get access to your personal data unless one of your guns is used to commit a crime and police somewhere have enough evidence to prove specific weapon was used and get a warrant to track it back to the owner.

The penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime should be draconian in nature, and doubly so if it as unregistered weapon or one registered to someone other than yourself.

Right of ownership of a gun should not be conferred until a person reaches age 21.

States and cities SHOULD have the right to set their own laws regarding gun ownership and carry laws. If a city wishes to make guns illegal, that is their right. If you don't like it, move. That is your right.

This includes doing away with gun free zones if states wish, except of course on federal property located within the state.

Felons are absolutely , positively forbidden to own weapons and the penalty for having one should again be draconian.

NO federal law, executive order, or other federal edict shall be allowed to dictate what a state may do in regards to firearms within their borders except in the case of federal property within those borders.

The federal government retains the right to control the interstate trade of guns and may make laws pertaining to such which supersede any state laws to the contrary.












boo and hiss away lol

The truth always outs. Suddenly you are so much more brilliant that the authors of the Constitution!
Now who didn't think you felt that way.
Here it comes the line you made famous. --- This thread is stupid... silly, infantile. --Tyr
And even downrightfunny considering who authored it ...

[ConHog]

The truth always outs. Suddenly you are so much more brilliant that the authors of the Constitution!
Now who didn't think you felt that way.
Here it comes the line you made famous. --- This thread is stupid... silly, infantile. --Tyr
And even downrightfunny considering who authored it ...

So you have nothing to add to the actual conversation?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So you have nothing to add to the actual conversation?

You mean my using your words was nothing!! I added in a few of my own for good measure.
Should I quote where you said the exact same thing to jog your memory??
How about my declaration that you hardly qualify to discuss the topic with any authority IMHO... -Tyr

[ConHog]

You mean my using your words was nothing!! I added in a few of my own for good measure.
Should I quote where you said the exact same thing to jog your memory??
How about my declaration that you hardly qualify to discuss the topic with any authority IMHO... -Tyr

Please stop, there is simply no reason for you to attempt to destroy EVERY thread I post in.

[red states rule]

The truth always outs. Suddenly you are so much more brilliant that the authors of the Constitution!
Now who didn't think you felt that way.
Here it comes the line you made famous. --- This thread is stupid... silly, infantile. --Tyr
And even downrightfunny considering who authored it ...

[Nukeman]

nothing that I proposed takes any of that away, indeed it actually strengthens your position in many ways, while also giving the government certain safeguards which under current law they have taken unconstitutionally.


the government will NOT know what guns you have , not even if one of your guns is committed in a crime, because that is the ONLY one that they would have access to the personal data for. IOW there is no cross reference that says if you own a M16 and a 1911 and the 1911 is used in a crime that they look up the 1911 and also see that you have an M16.

Though they might find it in a subsequent search should they obtain either permission or a warrant to do so.

Did you read what you posted in the OP?? You state they will NOT know yet you call for full registration of ALL guns,, guess what there skippy by registering them they know what you have!!!! Or did you skim over that??

well, except that I advocate strengthening gun rights.

Really by letting the govt know exactly who has what and where?? YOU are advocating for stricter licensing and taxation for ALL firearms aas well as the registration of ALL firearms just look at the following quote of yours from the OP.. I honestly have a hard time believeing you wrote it if you contradict yourself within 2 posts!!!!

The government on the other hand ought be able to set certain conditions and levy taxes on such weapons, and yes keep track of them. But not in the way you might think.

Every weapon should have to be registered with the local police department, such registration should include a photo of the gun, the serial number, and a bullet sample for forensic matching if necessary.

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world

.

REALLY bad idea... The 2ns was put in place to keep the govt in check to the general popuation not fro them to reach into our homes to know what firearms we have, and that is EXACTLY what you are proposing with your forced registration and taxation of ALL firearms...

[red states rule]

Conman does have many backers in his quest to pass more gun laws

[Marcus Aurelius]

Conman does have many backers in his quest to pass more gun laws

Everyone in the government who wants stricter gun control laws should be made to watch this.

[Thunderknuckles]

I disagree with you ConHog although I appreciate your point of view. The one thing you and I consistently disagree on is potential government abuse of power. You tend to put a little too much faith in the fderal gov't. You idea for a new 2nd gives the government far too much leeway. I think the worst part of the idea was this:

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .l

Not only is that offensive to me as an American but that is also a huge national security risk. Your making a globally available database detailing exactly who is armed and with what in the United States. Can you imagine any nation in the course of human history that would willingly make that information available where their enemies could get their hands on it? That is insanity.

REALLY bad idea... The 2ns was put in place to keep the govt in check to the general popuation not fro them to reach into our homes to know what firearms we have, and that is EXACTLY what you are proposing with your forced registration and taxation of ALL firearms...

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. The 2nd is good the way it is.

[ConHog]

I disagree with you ConHog although I appreciate your point of view. The one thing you and I consistently disagree on is potential government abuse of power. You tend to put a little too much faith in the fderal gov't. You idea for a new 2nd gives the government far too much leeway. I think the worst part of the idea was this:

Not only is that offensive to me as an American but that is also a huge national security risk. Your making a globally available database detailing exactly who is armed and with what in the United States. Can you imagine any nation in the course of human history that would willingly make that information available where their enemies could get their hands on it? That is insanity.


That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. The 2nd is good the way it is.

You , and others, have completely misread my thought about gun registration.

First there would be two databases. One that contained JUST gun information, and one that included gun ownership.

TO access the gun database a government entity would need reason. Say they found a bullet fired from a S&W .40. They could run a comparison and if a match came up they would have access to THAT file.

Similar to the way the national fingerprint database works. If they have my print and are running it for a match the system doesn't identify YOUR print. It only gives them access to the one that matches.

THEN if they found a match they could apply for a warrant for the other database. If they got it THEN they could match up the gun with the registered owner.

Appropriate security measures taken at all times

I'm not talking about a free for all www.wheretheguns.com where anyone can find out who has what and where.

and I don't trust the government any more than you do, I just unfortunately believe that most people are idiots and so we NEED the government whether we trust them or not.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need any of the enumerated rights to be enumerated. Nor would we need to make murder illegal, for example. But this isn't an ideal world, so let's deal with reality.

[glockmail]

Sorry, but the 2nd is perfect the way it is. Especially the part about militias because that gives us the ability to defend ourselves against the government should the need arise as it has in so many other examples throughout history. This same government doesn't need to know what arms I own or how many of them, since in order to over power them I will require the assistance of tens of million of fellow patriots and GovCo won't know who we are or how we will hit them.

The right to bear arms means that we have the right to defend our persons and personal property against those who would do us harm. We don't have the right to indiscriminately kill people or inflict collateral damage while defending ourselves which is why "arms" doesn't include weapons of mass destruction.

[ConHog]

Sorry, but the 2nd is perfect the way it is. Especially the part about militias because that gives us the ability to defend ourselves against the government should the need arise as it has in so many other examples throughout history. This same government doesn't need to know what arms I own or how many of them, since in order to over power them I will require the assistance of tens of million of fellow patriots and GovCo won't know who we are or how we will hit them.

The right to bear arms means that we have the right to defend our persons and personal property against those who would do us harm. We don't have the right to indiscriminately kill people or inflict collateral damage while defending ourselves which is why "arms" doesn't include weapons of mass destruction.

nothing that I proposed takes any of that away, indeed it actually strengthens your position in many ways, while also giving the government certain safeguards which under current law they have taken unconstitutionally.


the government will NOT know what guns you have , not even if one of your guns is committed in a crime, because that is the ONLY one that they would have access to the personal data for. IOW there is no cross reference that says if you own a M16 and a 1911 and the 1911 is used in a crime that they look up the 1911 and also see that you have an M16.

Though they might find it in a subsequent search should they obtain either permission or a warrant to do so.

[glockmail]

nothing that I proposed takes any of that away, indeed it actually strengthens your position in many ways, while also giving the government certain safeguards which under current law they have taken unconstitutionally.


the government will NOT know what guns you have , not even if one of your guns is committed in a crime, because that is the ONLY one that they would have access to the personal data for. IOW there is no cross reference that says if you own a M16 and a 1911 and the 1911 is used in a crime that they look up the 1911 and also see that you have an M16.

Though they might find it in a subsequent search should they obtain either permission or a warrant to do so.

You are theorizing that GovCo can be trusted. The entire basis of the Constitution is that it can not.

[ConHog]

You are theorizing that GovCo can be trusted. The entire basis of the Constitution is that it can not.

Trusted? to a point, yes.

Notice that in my proposal the databases are kept at a local level for example and that is they who decide who gets access to what.

Pretty easy to get the local sherrif unelected if you feel he's improperly giving access.

Now if you're uneasy that the NSA is going to break into the Podunk,NE gun registration database, not much I can do to assuage your fears there. lol

To say the second is not adequate for our times would mean that after 100? years then it would require another rewrite because this rewrite is no longer adequate. It admits that rights change which is not something we should be OK with.

Even the First is not an absolute right and it's not unthinkable that the current Second is absolute. Clearly it's not when we are already under some restrictions.

I think the Commerce Clause would be sufficient for the last part.



Well, the people could certainly be the ones to craft any change.



So, the Founding Fathers were the original touters of the liberal line? They were the ones that codified the amendment process.

It has came to light that Lincoln was a liberal as well LOL