Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[mundame]

I think consideration of a new constitution has some merit IF (a really BIG "IF) the process as outlined is followed and IF (another BIG IF) the CItizens and States are the PRIMARY force behind it. I do not trust the current administration or the current members of Congress to craft anything!

Yeah..................that's what we need, a Constitutional Convention! This is exactly how the French Revolution started. Once there's a constitutional convention, anything, absolutely anything at all, can happen, and the powers-that-are will fight such a convention tooth and nail; the French monarchy lost that fight. Considering Madame Guillotine and "Terror is the Order of the Day!" I would agree with not wanting a constitutional convention.

I found the Second Amendment thread, good. I didn't see much I liked in the opening post, but I am very interested in this controversy generally.

I pointed out earlier that all sorts of weapons that SHOULD be protected under the Second Amendment, are in fact illegal.

Even given Scalia's current thinking that it only protects what a walking soldier can carry by himself (ummmmmmmmmm.............................interesti ng interpretation, but I'm not giving that one away just because Scalia sez it. Remind me again why six militia members can't carry a machine gun?), there are still lots of weapons commonly carried by troops that are already illegal ---

It is clear that the Second Amendment has already been infringed up one side and down the other.

This immediately became an IQ test here. Sadly too many people immediately claimed that there was no problem with this, OF COURSE grenades were illegal!!! (Why, if you treasure the Second like Holy Writ?) And all the many other weapons that have mysteriously and quietly disappeared from the roster of ways to kill your neighbor with the barking dog.

BUT, they would opine, it would be grossly illegal, worthy of instant rebellion, if the Second was infringed by banning assault rifles!!! (Wait, they were already banned for ten years --- what about that? Why didn't you all rebel then?)

This was all very confusing. How can people think in such water-tight compartments? At least two men earned my immediate respect by agreeing that of course grenades, rocket launchers, submachine guns, bayonets, etc., etc. were covered under the Second. Duh.

Well, thank you, let's do throw a little plain logic and fact onto the fire here. Okay, the Second has already been grossly infringed. This is because if weapons of mass destruction are available to the masses, the masses self-destruct, gaily using whatever nukes, bombs, grenades, assault rifles, machine guns, biological and chemical weapons they can get hold of to kill large numbers of people. Good-bye, Chicago.

Okay, so given that the Second is already grossly infringed, why not infringe it a little more and take away the psycho favorites, the assault rifles and high-capacity magazines? They already were banned for ten years: clearly it has not worked out well to unban them.

The argument now is we can't ban anything else because of the slippery slope.

I am not sure that's a good argument, but at least people have stopped claiming the Second Amendment is inviolate, pure as the Virgin Mary. In fact, that old Amendment has been living hard, whacked around till it's barely recognizable.

[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.

[tailfins]

Yeah..................that's what we need, a Constitutional Convention! This is exactly how the French Revolution started. Once there's a constitutional convention, anything, absolutely anything at all, can happen, and the powers-that-are will fight such a convention tooth and nail; the French monarchy lost that fight. Considering Madame Guillotine and "Terror is the Order of the Day!" I would agree with not wanting a constitutional convention.

A con-con only needs one amendment instead of the twenty-seven we now have:

The Federal Government shall do everything in its power to achieve Fairness, Social Justice and Diversity.

Who could be against fairness?

************************************************** ************************************************** ***
My point is that our freedom is the inheritance of a wiser generation. Changing the Bill of Rights would be akin to torching that inheritance.

[mundame]

A con-con only needs one amendment instead of the twenty-seven we now have:

The Federal Government shall do everything in its power to achieve Fairness, Social Justice and Diversity.

Who could be against fairness?

Reminds me of the WSJ cartoon I saw with two Indians watching Columbus' three ships sail in --- "Don't worry," says one, "In diversity is our strength!"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OK, then you rally both the House and Senate to pass your idea by a 2/3 majority - then you take your show on the road and get 2/3's of the states to pass it within the 2 year time limit - then you will get your wish

Until then, your idea is not worth the space it took up on the board

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again.

[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.

[Thunderknuckles]

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.

I know you are not talking about freely available information. But if there's a database out there, it can be hacked into not only by our own government but our enemies as well. That's my fear. The amount of information we currently store about the citizenry of this nation is already frightening. Even more frightening is that the citizenry are willing releasing that information to be stored.

[ConHog]

I know you are not talking about freely available information. But if there's a database out there, it can be hacked into not only by our own government but our enemies as well. That's my fear. The amount of information we currently store about the citizenry of this nation is already frightening. Even more frightening is that the citizenry are willing releasing that information to be stored.

well of course ANYTHING could be hacked. But there are reasonable measures to take to prevent that. And under MY system it would require a DOUBLE hack to obtain the total picture. That seems improbable.

[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.

[fj1200]

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.

...

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.

....

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.

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.

Hmm...the logic you apply to the first amendment should also apply to the second. The first does not list what type of speech should be considered "free" nor what vocabulary and accompanying definitions are acceptable. I am skeptical that the government (especially with the crop of clowns currently in office) would show any sort of competence in crafting an amendment that would not inadvertently over extend the powers of the federal government beyond reason.

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

He is touting the new liberal line. They also are advancing the plan that the Constitution should be abolished and rewritten. Just more socialist/leftist trash talk and Conhog advances it as if its brilliance and he is some genius authority on it !---Tyr

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

[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

[Little-Acorn]

Don't repeal the 2nd amendment.

Just modify it. (Yes, you can amend an amendment.)

Get rid of the first thirteen words, whose purpose was to explain why the right could not be infringed. That will get rid of the gun-haters' most common dodge: Pretending that the 2nd only applied to people (or weapons) in the military.

Then add, "No exceptions but those decided for a particular case by Jury Nullification, are permitted for any reason."

This takes away ANY authority of any government, to decide who can or can't own and cary a gun.

Then only parents can decide whether their kids will be allowed to own and carry.

And if a cop takes away a gun from someone the cop thinks was going to use it illegally, and the guy sues the cop under the (modified) second amendment, a jury can decide whether to let the cop off or not... but no one else can. Including a judge.

The bad news is, convicted felons who have served their sentences, cannot have their right to own a gun, taken away. Serving his sentence, restores his right afterward. And non compos mentis also cannot have their guns taken away.

The good news is, government can never take YOUR guns away either, no matter how hard they try.

I submit that a society in which both the good news and the bad news above is true, will be a more peaceful, safer, and more prosperous society, than one where the govt is given ANY authority to restrict or take guns away. Because govt will always abuse and expand its power, as ours is doing today. Neither society is perfectly safe... but one is safer than the other.

Comment?

[ConHog]

Don't repeal the 2nd amendment.

Just modify it. (Yes, you can amend an amendment.)

Get rid of the first thirteen words, whose purpose was to explain why the right could not be infringed. That will get rid of the gun-haters' most common dodge: Pretending that the 2nd only applied to people (or weapons) in the military.

Then add, "No exceptions but those decided for a particular case by Jury Nullification, are permitted for any reason."

This takes away ANY authority of any government, to decide who can or can't own and cary a gun.

Then only parents can decide whether their kids will be allowed to own and carry.

And if a cop takes away a gun from someone the cop thinks was going to use it illegally, and the guy sues the cop under the (modified) second amendment, a jury can decide whether to let the cop off or not... but no one else can. Including a judge.

The bad news is, convicted felons who have served their sentences, cannot have their right to own a gun, taken away. Serving his sentence, restores his right afterward. And non compos mentis also cannot have their guns taken away.

The good news is, government can never take YOUR guns away either, no matter how hard they try.

I submit that a society in which both the good news and the bad news above is true, will be a more peaceful, safer, and more prosperous society, than one where the govt is given ANY authority to restrict or take guns away. Because govt will always abuse and expand its power, as ours is doing today. Neither society is perfectly safe... but one is safer than the other.

Comment?

that in noway addresses the issue of illegal guns nor does is give society any way to put a check on anyone who shouldn't own a gun.


and such would never be passed.

[Robert A Whit]

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

Nope.

Good luck trying to make that dumb post work.

[Little-Acorn]

that in noway addresses the issue of illegal guns

It resolves that "issue" completely... by making all guns legal.

In fact, there is no such thing as an illegal gun. Only an illegal action with a gun, such as threatening, injuring, or murdering someone. (Those action are also illegal with a knife or baseball bat too.)

Even the original 2nd amendment named "the right of the people", not "the right of the weapon". And properly so. The Framers knew there was no such thing as an illegal gun.

nor does is give society any way to put a check on anyone who shouldn't own a gun.

Of course it does. A cop (or, for that matter, any citizen, such as a neighbor or friend who knows that Poindexter McFee is mentally unstable and so takes his gun away) can still take anybody's gun away. But he knows that he'll have to answer to a jury for his action, when the guy sues him for it for violating his (modified) 2nd amendment rights. If the cop thinks the jury will decide to let him off ("Jury nullification"), then the cop can take the gun away with confidence. If he thinks a jury of his peers wouldn't think he had good enough reason, then probably he shouldn't take the gun away.

As I said, this won't make society perfectly safe. Nothing can do that. But I submit that it will make society safer than it is now.