Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1425359 wrote: It may take years upon years but if that is the only way, amending the second amendment should begin.Accountable;1425360 wrote: It is the supreme law of the land and there is a set procedure to change it to fit the times if necessary.AnneBoleyn;1425362 wrote: Change is never easy. Let the hard work begin.tude dog;1425363 wrote: If you believe we should amend the Constitution, go for it.


I tried to start this discussion in another forum, but it fell apart. Are the Americans here willing to seriously discuss it?

We can discuss the original purpose, argue about whether it is a natural right, etc.

Or we can discuss what to do about it:

Should we keep dishonoring the rule of law and continue violating it as we have been?

Should we remove the infringements that we've been imposing for generations (such as prohibiting machine guns)?

Should we replace it with something more fitting to the times?

Should we repeal it altogether? Disarm the nation? Leave it to the states to decide each for itself?

Who wants to take the first shot? hehehe.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

No takers? None??

Okay how's this: Let's repeal the Second Amendment, leave each state to decide how they will handle the issue, and prohibit the federal gov't from interfering. Would you support that? I think I would.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

It was the American federal law makers that made the constitution was it not? ...Isn't it them who should change it?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

fuzzywuzzy;1425456 wrote: It was the American federal law makers that made the constitution was it not? ...Isn't it them who should change it?
The federal gov't didn't exist before the Constitution. The Constitution established it. The process to change (amend) it is very difficult and convoluted, involving the federal legislators, but state legislators as well. It's set up so that nothing gets changed on a whim, but it sometimes seems to be too difficult to change.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

Accountable;1425454 wrote: No takers? None??

Okay how's this: Let's repeal the Second Amendment, leave each state to decide how they will handle the issue, and prohibit the federal gov't from interfering. Would you support that? I think I would.


For all practical purposes that has been the practice, states and local jurisdictions ignoring the 2nd. Even since the Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald, states and local jurisdictions pretty much do what they want.

Kinda like the 4th Amendment. Recently we saw what looked like para military police in Boston going door to door ordering people out of their homes, and why not? New York City has NYPD stop-and-frisk policy, 4.4 million detentions

I find it curious the 2nd and 4th don't enjoy the same popularity as the 5th. We all know the 5th, on every crime show, the "right to remain silent".
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

Weak Constitution - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 04/24/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Jon Stewart doesn't get to your point until about 2:40 into the video, but the whole thing's entertaining.

Yes, we've been bending & ignoring the Second since the day it was written, but none of the others are sacrosanct, either. It's really remarkable that our society has held together as long as it has, especially when you study history closely. Our strongest glue seems to be fear and denial. I suppose other societies are the same.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

So Saint, you've got time to come in and rail that "America's gun culture is outdated, outrageous, and out of control," but you're too cowardly to join in here? Why is that?
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by YZGI »

My opinion.

The 2nd amendment needs to be changed so that it's not constantly being broken. They need to amend so that nukes, tanks, assault weapons (whatever that may be) can be outlawed without infringing on the right to bear arms. Maybe just allow "sporting" weapons ie. shotguns, deer rifles and pistols with low capacity clips. I'm sure no matter what is considered or not considered there will be upset people.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

YZGI;1425943 wrote: My opinion.

The 2nd amendment needs to be changed so that it's not constantly being broken.Exactly. At least that way we're honoring the rule of law.

YZGI;1425943 wrote: They need to amend so that nukes, tanks, assault weapons (whatever that may be) can be outlawed without infringing on the right to bear arms. Maybe just allow "sporting" weapons ie. shotguns, deer rifles and pistols with low capacity clips.To narrow that down we need to agree on the purpose of the amendment. What was the original ... What do we want it to be ... like that.

YZGI;1425943 wrote: I'm sure no matter what is considered or not considered there will be upset people.
That's for sure.
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Wandrin »

I kept hoping that the Supreme Court would at least come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes a "well regulated militia", but I can see that it goes deeper than that. I agree that it is time to rewrite it to remove all ambiguity and to specify the purpose well enough that future courts can work with it when technology creates new weapons that would seem to blur the lines.

Unfortunately, I see virtually zero possibility of a rewrite being seriously discussed in today's political climate.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

Wandrin;1426000 wrote: I kept hoping that the Supreme Court would at least come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes a "well regulated militia", but I can see that it goes deeper than that.I think you might enjoy this read. It's a grammatical analysis of the amendment.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Wandrin;1426000 wrote: I agree that it is time to rewrite it to remove all ambiguity and to specify the purpose well enough that future courts can work with it when technology creates new weapons that would seem to blur the lines.It is not in the government's best interest to allow the Second Amendment as originally intended.

Wandrin;1426000 wrote: Unfortunately, I see virtually zero possibility of a rewrite being seriously discussed in today's political climate.
I certainly agree with you there. With fear mongers on both sides appealing to everyone's basest emotions rather than intellect, prospects are grim. I think it will take a different kind of president using the bully pulpit to bring sensible debate to the issue, but what are the odds of getting such a person in the White House while Republocrats control the show?
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

In accordance with what was written in your link Acc In todays terms the words ""Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'"

Doesn't that mena if a civil war broke out in your country the citizens can arm themselves, or create their own militias, or use their own weapons in the militias? As I believe has been demonstrated once before .

I don't see anything in those writings to state that citizens can arm themselves against other citizens. Which is normally the case when gun control comes up . I read the 'rights of the people" ......"not persons"

I see two very different worlds here historically.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by gmc »

Does your constitution anywhere have the phrase "these rules will bind the people from now until the end of time" or something similar"

I think your religious right have a lot to answer for. They believe in a book that tells them how to think and they view the constitution in the same way - what is written can't be changed it's a mentality that prevents people thinking for themselves and being able to contemplate change. Bear in mind I am a foreigner and don;t claim to know what the hell I am talking about when it comes to this kind of thing, just thought I would put in my tuppence worth.

What you should do to prevent yourself being oppressed by the government is disarm the police so - they can't be used to oppress the people, and keep the military so small it can't be used against the people.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

fuzzywuzzy;1426023 wrote: In accordance with what was written in your link Acc In todays terms the words ""Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'"

Doesn't that mena if a civil war broke out in your country the citizens can arm themselves, or create their own militias, or use their own weapons in the militias? As I believe has been demonstrated once before . I think that's a fair interpretation.

fuzzywuzzy;1426023 wrote: I don't see anything in those writings to state that citizens can arm themselves against other citizens. Which is normally the case when gun control comes up . I read the 'rights of the people" ......"not persons"

I see two very different worlds here historically.I see your point. Perhaps someone could argue the point that we have the right to remain armed as a deterrent against foreign attack or tyrannical domestic government, but not to bear arms against each other. I don't remember ever having heard or read that angle. Good food for thought! It would certainly rectify the conflict between the amendment text and urban areas' need for tighter security than rural areas.

I'm going to drop this little nugget into future debates and see how many brains explode. :wah:



I read the 'rights of the people" ......"not persons"
I don't see the difference here. If "the People" doesn't include every person, then how is the decision made as to which persons are not part of The People? It can't be the government because the right is to ward against them. Conflict of interest.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

gmc;1426028 wrote: Does your constitution anywhere have the phrase "these rules will bind the people from now until the end of time" or something similar"The rules don't bind the people. It was never designed to. The Constitution is written to bind the government. Every clause is phrased to restrict the government, not the people, until the 16th Amendment, ratified more than 120 years after the document was originally written. Since then, only the 16th and 18th Amendments failed to establish restrictions on our federal government.

gmc;1426028 wrote: What you should do to prevent yourself being oppressed by the government is disarm the police so - they can't be used to oppress the people, and keep the military so small it can't be used against the people.You won't find me arguing against that.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

This is something I find interesting.

As of now, 49 of the 50 states have some allowance for a citizen to carry a concealed weapon. The states vary greatly as to if this is something reasonably exercised by the average citizen.



Everybody can see, Illinois sticks out like a sore thumb.

There are 3 states which respect the Constitution.

38 states citizens must apply to exercise their right.

8 states at best are arbitrary in allowing citizens to exercise their rights.

Now we come to the sore thumb,

Illinois

There are some folk in Illinois who just don't like that and managed this.

7th Circuit Strikes Illinois Concealed-Carry Ban, Gives State 180 Days to Revise Gun Law

Now the fun begins.

People who don't like it will do all they can to limit that right. Of course, those who are happy with that decision want to get full benefit.

I am no expert on Illinois politics, but what seems to be common knowledge is Chicago/Cook County weights heavily in state politics and much of every thing south is very different than the Democratic machine in Chi-town.

So now we have the 7th Circuit order, state government working the details, then

Chicago appeals.

Court gives state more time for concealed carry appeal

CHICAGO — The U.S. Supreme Court is giving Illinois’ attorney general more time to decide whether to appeal a ruling that the state’s ban on the public possession of firearms is unconstitutional.

The home of McDonald vs Chicago, US Supreme Court officially declares a citizen has a right to own guns is fighting tooth and nail to keep their citizens defenseless in the face of 500 murders a year.

Looks to me as if their policies just ain't working to well.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

From a FB friend:

What if, mandatorily, a tiny digital camera was placed inside all guns, which took pictures of the shooter and what they're shooting every time they took a shot. These pictures would immediately be sent to the nearest police station. A designated person in the police station could monitor any pictures that come in and could determine if they are hunting, shooting targets, or committing murder. Then people would still get their damn guns, but would be completely and immediately accountable for their gun use, thereby preventing many gun deaths and stopping murderers.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

What if, mandatorily, a tiny digital camera was placed inside all guns, which took pictures of the shooter and what they're shooting every time they took a shot. These pictures would immediately be sent to the nearest police station. A designated person in the police station could monitor any pictures that come in and could determine if they are hunting, shooting targets, or committing murder. Then people would still get their damn guns, but would be completely and immediately accountable for their gun use, thereby preventing many gun deaths and stopping murderers.


I don't know where the government derives the right to monitor individual citizens who are not suspected of any crime.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Registration of all guns, including a spent bullet to identify said gun, would not, in my opinion, impede the 2nd Amendment in any way.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

In addition, registration must be designed so it costs nothing, or almost nothing; it also must not be terribly inconvenient, i.e. like waiting on long lines at the DMV.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1426222 wrote: In addition, registration must be designed so it costs nothing, or almost nothing; it also must not be terribly inconvenient, i.e. like waiting on long lines at the DMV.
I think you've hit on an angle that gun control advocates and hoplophobes wouldn't consider. They seem to want to make registration prohibitively difficult, thereby controlling behavior.

I think you're right that registration in and of itself infringe on one's right to keep and/or bear arms. The question of the purpose or effectiveness toward that purpose might be a point of debate.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1426221 wrote: Registration of all guns, including a spent bullet to identify said gun, would not, in my opinion, impede the 2nd Amendment in any way.


No more than registration of all printing presses/printers would "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

AnneBoleyn;1426221 wrote: In addition, registration must be designed so it costs nothing, or almost nothing; it also must not be terribly inconvenient, i.e. like waiting on long lines at the DMV.


:yh_rotfl

No doubt lines at the DMV would make a nice thread, if not done already.

It doesn't thrill me the government makes it convenient for me to sign away my rights.:(
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by gmc »

tude dog;1426220 wrote: I don't know where the government derives the right to monitor individual citizens who are not suspected of any crime.


From the American citizens who voted in to office the legislators that passed the necessary laws. They are the same ones who allow your government to hold people without trial.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Accountable;1426229 wrote: I think you've hit on an angle that gun control advocates and hoplophobes wouldn't consider. They seem to want to make registration prohibitively difficult, thereby controlling behavior.

I think you're right that registration in and of itself infringe on one's right to keep and/or bear arms. The question of the purpose or effectiveness toward that purpose might be a point of debate.


Don't you mean doesn't infringe on one's right?
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

tude dog;1426234 wrote: No more than registration of all printing presses/printers would "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."


We already know who the press is, we know who speaks. Knowing who said what does not suppress the 1st Amendment. Unless, of course, you are saying something you are ashamed of; that you don't want anyone to know who. Or, if you are wrongly "shouting fire" when there is none, like in a theater.

If you are either ashamed or afraid, your shame or fear is not a covered protection.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Originally Posted by Accountable :

I think you've hit on an angle that gun control advocates and hoplophobes wouldn't consider. They seem to want to make registration prohibitively difficult, thereby controlling behavior.




Hoplophobes, now that's a new one for me, good work! Well, this discussion isn't about irrational fears of firearms Or disarming American society, this discussion is about the 2nd Amendment. I am aware that my solution has some holes, like this wouldn't stop suicidal killers like Adam Lanza. Unless a legitimate gun owner is planning something illegal, like a robbery, there should be no complaint against it that is valid.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1426239 wrote: We already know who the press is,


And my Mother too?

AnneBoleyn;1426239we know who speaks.[/quote wrote:


Knowing who said what does not suppress the 1st Amendment. Unless, of course, you are saying something you are ashamed of; that you don't want anyone to know who. Or, if you are wrongly "shouting fire" when there is none, like in a theater.

If you are either ashamed or afraid, your shame or fear is not a covered protection.


Our founding Fathers were never ashamed, but afraid. The Brits would hang them all on sight.

Henceforth

In the first was included the FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Freedom of the Press does not involve secrecy. That is why John Hancock signed his name so large. Tom Paine wrote under his own name, Benjamin Franklin ran a press under his own name. Someone who is afraid to stand behind their own thoughts & philosophies is a gutless coward in my book. I don't know what your mother has to do with this.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

NON IMPEDITI RATIONE COGITATIONIS means to be "unencumbered by the thought process". I agree, great motto for you.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1426243 wrote: Freedom of the Press does not involve secrecy.


How could it not??

What use of it is when the weak present grievance against the powerful? Our Founding Fathers knew that and took full advantage of it.

AnneBoleyn;1426243 wrote: That is why John Hancock signed his name so large. Tom Paine wrote under his own name, Benjamin Franklin ran a press under his own name. Someone who is afraid to stand behind their own thoughts & philosophies is a gutless coward in my book.


The Declaration of Independence was not a press release.

AnneBoleyn;1426243 wrote: I don't know what your mother has to do with this.


Sorry, should not have brought her into this. She was a compulsive writer to news papers, and got published often. Nothing big, but I wouldn't under my own name.

Kinda like here.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

The only guarantee to privacy in the Constitution is the 5th Amendment, allowing you to keep secrets not to incriminate yourself. All other so-called privacy rights are assumed or inferred or interpreted. Unless you can show me otherwise. I mean Really Show Me.

"The Declaration of Independence was not a press release."

Sez You:

"After Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration on July 4, a handwritten copy was sent a few blocks away to the printing shop of John Dunlap. Through the night Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides for distribution. Before long, the Declaration was read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers across the thirteen states. The first official public reading of the document was by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall on July 8; public readings also took place on that day in Trenton, New Jersey, and Easton, Pennsylvania. A German translation of the Declaration was published in Philadelphia by July 9."

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you argue just for the sake of arguing.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1426244 wrote: NON IMPEDITI RATIONE COGITATIONIS means to be "unencumbered by the thought process". I agree, great motto for you.


Thank you, I live by it.:-6

Two years of Latin and all I learned was "Vini, Vidi, Vici":-2

I learned the unencumbered thing from the guys of a radio show on NPR, CAR TALK

I love it in part because they just don't take themselves to seriously.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

"I love it in part because they just don't take themselves to seriously"

That's too seriously.

It might interest you to know I met Click & Clack, or Tom & Ray Magliozzi. They, like my son, are MIT graduates. I met them on campus. I can assure you they take what they say Very Seriously & know grammar & spelling too. Comedy is a serious business. They may run their cars, but not their mouths.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1426258 wrote: The only guarantee to privacy in the Constitution is the 5th Amendment, allowing you to keep secrets not to incriminate yourself. All other so-called privacy rights are assumed or inferred or interpreted. Unless you can show me otherwise. I mean Really Show Me.

"The Declaration of Independence was not a press release."

Sez You:

"After Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration on July 4, a handwritten copy was sent a few blocks away to the printing shop of John Dunlap. Through the night Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides for distribution. Before long, the Declaration was read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers across the thirteen states. The first official public reading of the document was by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall on July 8; public readings also took place on that day in Trenton, New Jersey, and Easton, Pennsylvania. A German translation of the Declaration was published in Philadelphia by July 9."

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you argue just for the sake of arguin.


No, not at all.

It was a legal document, not an opinion piece.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

No, not at all.

It was a legal document, not an opinion piece.

They all engaged in anonymous writing.

Heck, Jefferson owned a newspaper on the down low.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

tude dog;1426264 wrote: No, not at all.

It was a legal document, not an opinion piece.

They all engaged in anonymous writing.

Heck, Jefferson owned a newspaper on the down low.


Two years of Latin and all I learned was "Vini, Vidi, Vici"


Quinquennis Latine.

Potes habere verbum ultimum.

Iam enim.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1426238 wrote: Don't you mean doesn't infringe on one's right?Yes of course. Good catch, thanks.



tude dog;1426234 wrote: It doesn't thrill me the government makes it convenient for me to sign away my rights.:(
I may have missed it, but I didn't see the obvious question: Which rights would you be signing away?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1426258 wrote: The only guarantee to privacy in the Constitution is the 5th Amendment, allowing you to keep secrets not to incriminate yourself. All other so-called privacy rights are assumed or inferred or interpreted. Unless you can show me otherwise. I mean Really Show Me.


The Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Unfortunately, too many people have been taught the lie that if the Constitution doesn't "grant" a right then it doesn't exist.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

AnneBoleyn;1426241 wrote: Hoplophobes, now that's a new one for me, good work! Well, this discussion isn't about irrational fears of firearms Or disarming American society, this discussion is about the 2nd Amendment. I am aware that my solution has some holes, like this wouldn't stop suicidal killers like Adam Lanza. Unless a legitimate gun owner is planning something illegal, like a robbery, there should be no complaint against it that is valid.


Learn to take a compliment. :yh_wink

I like your suggestion, and said so. I can see it complementing Tabby's interpretation. What do you think?
User avatar
tabby
Posts: 2511
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Virginia

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tabby »

Accountable;1426272 wrote: Learn to take a compliment. :yh_wink

I like your suggestion, and said so. I can see it complementing Tabby's interpretation. What do you think?


I think you gave credit to the wrong person ... maybe you meant fuzzy?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Accountable »

tabby;1426281 wrote: I think you gave credit to the wrong person ... maybe you meant fuzzy?
Tabby ... Fuzzy ... Fuzzy Tabby?





Sorry. :yh_bigsmi
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1426262 wrote: "I love it in part because they just don't take themselves to seriously"

That's too seriously.


Thanks. No doubt I'll get that wrong again, soon.

AnneBoleyn;1426262 wrote: It might interest you to know I met Click & Clack, or Tom & Ray Magliozzi. They, like my son, are MIT graduates. I met them on campus. I can assure you they take what they say Very Seriously & know grammar & spelling too. Comedy is a serious business. They may run their cars, but not their mouths.


I know they are also MIT grads (notice how I avoided the to,too, two thingy).

I've listened to them for practically the whole 25 years on NPR. I dunno about how seriously they take grammar and spelling, but do know they are no slouches when it comes to cars. Like safety.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

Accountable;1426270 wrote: Yes of course. Good catch, thanks.



I may have missed it, but I didn't see the obvious question: Which rights would you be signing away?


I'll get back to ya on that. If I don't just consider it me running off the mouth.:yh_doh
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4490
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1426266 wrote: Quinquennis Latine.

Potes habere verbum ultimum.

Iam enim.


Gratias

If you want, say something and Potes habere verbum ultimum.

Using Google translator isn't as much fun as a "pony" translating Gallic Wars.
If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles,” Doug Larson.

“Never doubt the courage of the French. They were the ones who discovered that snails are edible.”
― Doug Larson
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Try this in your Google translator: Pedicabo ego vos
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

tude dog;1426297 wrote: I'll get back to ya on that. If I don't just consider it me running off the mouth.:yh_doh


Sure ya will. A$$hole.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Excuse me. I meant to say "Sure ya will. Culus."
User avatar
Jeerleader
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:20 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Jeerleader »

Accountable;1425366 wrote: Should we keep dishonoring the rule of law and continue violating it as we have been?


That's not likely to change; governmental authority is presumed to exist over all things. The average American's fundamental understanding of what a "right" is does not allow the restraining of governmental action (as a matter of principle).

Accountable;1425366 wrote: [Should we remove the infringements that we've been imposing for generations (such as prohibiting machine guns)?


While I believe the National Firearms Act of 1934 (that enacted a federal tax on the transfer of machine guns between private citizens) is a infringement of the 2nd Amendment, I also believe the government could (if the law is ever challenged) defend those laws even under strict scrutiny.

Accountable;1425366 wrote: Should we replace it with something more fitting to the times?

Should we repeal it altogether? Disarm the nation?


All the 2nd Amendment 'does' is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted. Rewriting the 2nd or removing it altogether would not clarify the complete lack of powers it has now oer the personal arms of the private citizen or automatically give the federal government new powers.

The attempt to "disarm the nation" is a government action that the 2nd Amendment was intended to preclude.

Accountable;1425366 wrote: Leave it to the states to decide each for itself?


Well, the Bill of Rights was never intended to be applied to state governments. The Civil War, Reconstruction and states enacting the Black Codes forced things and the 14th Amendment was enacted.

The original intent of the 14th (to apply the first 8 provisions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states) was thwarted by SCOTUS (Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873) and while protecting the right to arms of Freedmen (former slaves) was a major component of the debates on the 14th Amendment, the right to arms as secured by the 2nd Amendment was only "incorporated" against the states in 2010 (McDonald v Chicago)

At this point to try to dismantle that structure just for the 2nd Amendment would be impossible without a constitutional amendment and would have ramifications to other rights protections we now take for granted.
User avatar
Jeerleader
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:20 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Jeerleader »

Wandrin;1426000 wrote: I kept hoping that the Supreme Court would at least come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes a "well regulated militia", but I can see that it goes deeper than that.


The Court in Heller did explain it - Part A, section 2; have you read DC v Heller?

But . . . IMNSHO, that inspection and discussion of the text was unnecessary and is one of my biggest complaints / criticisms of Scalia's Heller opinion.

I really wished he would have just relied on previous SCOTUS statements on the right to arms and 2nd Amendment (two separate and distinct things). Scalia did refer and re-affirm those statements but they should have been front and center so the discussions / debates about what "well regulated" means, or what "infringed" means, or what "arms" are, would be negated and relegated to the compost heap of illegitimate and inconsequential diversions as far as the pre-existing right goes . . .

SCOTUS has been boringly consistent for 140 years on this, specifically for the right to arms / 2nd Amendment:



Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [in this case, two former slaves being armed for self defense who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched by the KKK] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, 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 . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

(Cruikshank, Presser and Heller)



There is only one conclusion to be made from reading the 2nd Amendment; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Wandrin;1426000 wrote: I agree that it is time to rewrite it to remove all ambiguity and to specify the purpose well enough that future courts can work with it


All the 2nd Amendment 'does' is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted. Rewriting the 2nd would not further clarify the complete lack of powers it has now.

Wandrin;1426000 wrote: specify the purpose well enough that future courts can work with it when technology creates new weapons that would seem to blur the lines.


Heller addresses this. Scalia recognizes that one of the parts of the three pronged tests that SCOTUS uses to determine if an arm is protected by the 2nd, limits the function and technology of protected arms. "In common use at the time" would serve to allow government to restrict ownership of new weapon technologies as much as it now serves to permit government to restrict machine guns.
User avatar
Jeerleader
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:20 am

Are we ready for a serious discussion about changing the Second Amendment?

Post by Jeerleader »

tude dog;1426264 wrote: They all engaged in anonymous writing.


Perhaps the most notable were the "Federalist" series of 85 widely published articles advocating for the ratification of the Constitution. Madison, Hamilton and John Jay all wrote under the single nom de plume of PUBLIUS.

From the other side various commentators wrote (mostly) anonymously arguing against PUBLIUS' articles. These are now known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Return to “Gun Control”