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?

[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.

[CSM]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

I agree with you. the logic SHOULD extend and logically speaking we don't need the part about the militia in there take it out, and end the silly arguments. I'm tired of hearing some argue that we don't need a militia today so we should give up our guns. I don't have my guns in case I need to join a militia. So why should I care about that?

I also agree, whoever worded the amendment would have to be watched like a hawk. Personally I don't care for them, but I feel the NRA should be involved as a private watchdog during the process.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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.

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

[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.

[Kathianne]

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.

I seldom agree with you, but have to here. I'd add that the right to bear arms if for all you've stated and furthermore against a tyrannical governing body, whether state or federal. Can the populace withstand modern weapons? No. Would the government employ they? Only if they want to take over the 'world' would they wipe out the country.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://progreso-weekly.com/2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=898%3 Athe-2nd-amendment-should-be-repealed&catid=35%3A6172007-5202009&Itemid=60

Restricting firearms won’t eliminate murder. People will always find means to kill. But surely it will reduce the number of homicides and suicides. There is a reason why those who commit mass murder in schools, offices, and civic centers use firearms rather than knives or axes. Guns are very efficient killing tools.

Given the political reality, the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future are small, incremental steps to regulate access to guns. But this is a very inadequate solution. Before the Supreme Court decision declaring Washington, D.C.’s gun ban unconstitutional, it seemed possible to tightly regulate guns through laws at the local and state level. No more. The Court dismissed the argument that the right to bear arms should be interpreted in the context of a well-regulated militia rather than as an individual and almost absolute right. The consequence of gun ownership as a right is, as we have seen over the last weeks and months, that any nut case easily can acquire an arsenal and undertake a killing spree.

Thus the Second Amendment is one of those issues, like torture and the death penalty, where only abolition will qualify this country for full membership in the society of civilized nations

^^^^ Apparently you have been reading articles like this! And thinking brilliance just jumped out at you. -Tyr

[ConHog]

http://progreso-weekly.com/2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=898%3 Athe-2nd-amendment-should-be-repealed&catid=35%3A6172007-5202009&Itemid=60

Restricting firearms won’t eliminate murder. People will always find means to kill. But surely it will reduce the number of homicides and suicides. There is a reason why those who commit mass murder in schools, offices, and civic centers use firearms rather than knives or axes. Guns are very efficient killing tools.

Given the political reality, the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future are small, incremental steps to regulate access to guns. But this is a very inadequate solution. Before the Supreme Court decision declaring Washington, D.C.’s gun ban unconstitutional, it seemed possible to tightly regulate guns through laws at the local and state level. No more. The Court dismissed the argument that the right to bear arms should be interpreted in the context of a well-regulated militia rather than as an individual and almost absolute right. The consequence of gun ownership as a right is, as we have seen over the last weeks and months, that any nut case easily can acquire an arsenal and undertake a killing spree.

Thus the Second Amendment is one of those issues, like torture and the death penalty, where only abolition will qualify this country for full membership in the society of civilized nations

^^^^ Apparently you have been reading articles like this! And thinking brilliance just jumped out at you. -Tyr

well, except that I advocate strengthening gun rights.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

well, except that I advocate strengthening gun rights.

No, you don't. You talk in circles and have the audacity to think that YOU can correct the brilliance of the founders.
Nothing wrong with it and SCOTUS HAS UPHELD IT SO BLATHER ON HOSS. -TYR

[CSM]

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

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!