Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Robert A Whit]

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?

I am with ya man.

Great post.

[ConHog]

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.



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.

and of course some guns (or rather some gun owners) should be illegal, and you don't address that at all.

you guys are end up losing a lot more than that. You're more interested in winning the battle than you are in winning the war.

[Robert A Whit]

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.



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.

I am awe of your clear thinking. Great post man.

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

In what way was the Rogue Abe Lincoln a liberal?

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 would do as Acorn suggests. Without reading his post one more time, I would remove any ambiguity in the second and make the ownership of arms an absolute right with no weasel words. We have a serious problem with Democrats who believe they have the right to change our rights.

The gun is a machine. And it is personal property. Even bullets are personal property. The right to personal property is absolute. We value that right so much we include the right to not be searched with no warrant that itself must be legal.

Thus any laws trying to weasel out of our right is bogus.

As to laws saving people from criminals, lets review something else.

If guns kill people,
then pencils misspell words,
cars make people drive drunk,
and spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

[ConHog]

In what way was the Rogue Abe Lincoln a liberal?

That was the contention of another sir, not myself. So I fail to see how either.

[glockmail]

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

Right, because historically when federal governments turned on their people the local governments resisted. And the local government can be trusted to keep secrets.

How did you get this gullible?

[Kathianne]

Right, because historically when federal governments turned on their people the local governments resisted. And the local government can be trusted to keep secrets.

How did you get this gullible?

Yep, forget that 'supremacy law' feature.

[ConHog]

Right, because historically when federal governments turned on their people the local governments resisted. And the local government can be trusted to keep secrets.

How did you get this gullible?

and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.




talk about guillable , you heard rush limbaugh say that Obama wants to be a dictator and you shit all over yourself on your way to the gun store.

[Kathianne]

and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.




talk about guillable , you heard rush limbaugh say that Obama wants to be a dictator and you shit all over yourself on your way to the gun store.

Really? Where did he say that about Limbaugh?

[mundame]

and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.

ESPECIALLY when the citizens rise up and use their AK-47s, AR-15s, military flails, pikes to carry heads on, etc. The normal progression is monarchy >> democracy >> violent revolution >> strongman takeover, like Napoleon having his picture painted in floor-length ermines like Liberace a few years after the "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" revolution.

Really, the strongman takeover is the only hope we have at that point. And is usually a lot less bad than the bloodbath.

[Robert A Whit]

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!"

I have an outstanding reference book. Also while we all know very well how well that worked for the native tribes, in my book is material on the execution of Mary Dyer in Mass.

So who was Mary Dyer? Mary Dyer stood up against the then political leaders that created a law stipulating that Quakers can be put on trial and executed. She and 3 other Quakers were executed for simply being in Mass.

Originally Posted by ConHog
and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.

Mundame replies: ESPECIALLY when the citizens rise up and use their AK-47s, AR-15s, military flails, pikes to carry heads on, etc. The normal progression is monarchy >> democracy >> violent revolution >> strongman takeover, like Napoleon having his picture painted in floor-length ermines like Liberace a few years after the "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" revolution.

Really, the strongman takeover is the only hope we have at that point. And is usually a lot less bad than the bloodbath.

Believe it or not, there are ways to attack and defeat tanks.

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.

I somehow got the idea that gun manufacturers already must fire a bullet and send it to the Feds to be on file and said bullet matches said weapon by serial number.

Is this true? I think odds are it is true.

I think most voters are not very welll informed. Watch CSPAN and listen to callers if you suspect they are well informed.

[glockmail]

and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.




talk about guillable , you heard rush limbaugh say that Obama wants to be a dictator and you shit all over yourself on your way to the gun store.

No reason to get belligerent.

Think about it my friend, what would actually happen if some president, or faction of government, decided to start confiscating personal property, or decided that a certain group of Americans needed to be herded into camps "for their own protection". Or decided that a minority political party was dangerous and needed to be killed? While you're smirking on that understand that it has happened to civilized nations many times throughout history.

We do have a large military with tanks, aircraft, and missiles. But the situation is not unlike Washington faced during the revolution. That massive Army and Navy was ultimately defeated by cunning, deceit and bullets flying from many unknown directions.

In the US we currently have less that 5 active military per 1000 US citizens. How many of them do you think will follow unconstitutional orders? It's estimated that about 1/2 of those citizens own guns. How may do you think will use them to defend themselves?

[ConHog]

No reason to get belligerent.

Think about it my friend, what would actually happen if some president, or faction of government, decided to start confiscating personal property, or decided that a certain group of Americans needed to be herded into camps "for their own protection". Or decided that a minority political party was dangerous and needed to be killed? While you're smirking on that understand that it has happened to civilized nations many times throughout history.

We do have a large military with tanks, aircraft, and missiles. But the situation is not unlike Washington faced during the revolution. That massive Army and Navy was ultimately defeated by cunning, deceit and bullets flying from many unknown directions.

In the US we currently have less that 5 active military per 1000 US citizens. How many of them do you think will follow unconstitutional orders? It's estimated that about 1/2 of those citizens own guns. How may do you think will use them to defend themselves?

None, well of course some would I mean people are idiots, but you know what I'm saying.

Thus there would be no Army coming to get your guns. Not now, not ever, it's not going to happen.

When Obama's term is up , he will pack his bags and leave, he isn't going to try to use the military to become a dictator. Good Lord, that belongs in the conspiracy theory. BUT even if he did, the military would tell him to go fuck himself.

[aboutime]

No reason to get belligerent.

Think about it my friend, what would actually happen if some president, or faction of government, decided to start confiscating personal property, or decided that a certain group of Americans needed to be herded into camps "for their own protection". Or decided that a minority political party was dangerous and needed to be killed? While you're smirking on that understand that it has happened to civilized nations many times throughout history.

We do have a large military with tanks, aircraft, and missiles. But the situation is not unlike Washington faced during the revolution. That massive Army and Navy was ultimately defeated by cunning, deceit and bullets flying from many unknown directions.

In the US we currently have less that 5 active military per 1000 US citizens. How many of them do you think will follow unconstitutional orders? It's estimated that about 1/2 of those citizens own guns. How may do you think will use them to defend themselves?

glockmail. How easy it is to identify a Liberal in Denial. Look at how he refers to Rush. Too bad his liberalism got in the way, and exposed the idiocy of his ways.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No reason to get belligerent.

Think about it my friend, what would actually happen if some president, or faction of government, decided to start confiscating personal property, or decided that a certain group of Americans needed to be herded into camps "for their own protection". Or decided that a minority political party was dangerous and needed to be killed? While you're smirking on that understand that it has happened to civilized nations many times throughout history.

We do have a large military with tanks, aircraft, and missiles. But the situation is not unlike Washington faced during the revolution. That massive Army and Navy was ultimately defeated by cunning, deceit and bullets flying from many unknown directions.

In the US we currently have less that 5 active military per 1000 US citizens. How many of them do you think will follow unconstitutional orders? It's estimated that about 1/2 of those citizens own guns. How may do you think will use them to defend themselves?

As usual so often the naysayers have no historic references to use when forming their faulty opinions. Never was more true the old saying about those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
I blame the American Public Education System for the lion's share of that ignorance. I also note that its intentionally cultivated too. -Tyr

[ConHog]

As usual so often the naysayers have no historic references to use when forming their faulty opinions. Never was more true the old saying about those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
I blame the American Public Education System for the lion's share of that ignorance. I also note that its intentionally cultivated too. -Tyr

can anyone point to one single instance where the government of the United States initiated a confrontation with her own citizens for which I can look to history to see that it is a likely result?