Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[Puffnstuff]

Are we "criminalizing" a medical condition or actions?

Having a disability is not criminal by any means. I see this as a preventative measure that further defines who can legally own a gun to help sellers stay legal.

 

[mizzou]

OMG I love this argument....sarcasm.

Of all the problems in the USA, lawful gunowners are probably among the best behaved and contributing members. Let's punish them by telling them they can't own guns because we are afraid to actually deal with people who break laws with guns or who we know are a risk to have guns.

I can't wait for Red Dawn 3. Where we openly accept our communist invaders as they drive out the hillbillies who cling to their guns and their religion.

 

[TheVrolok]

Having a disability is not criminal by any means. I see this as a preventative measure that further defines who can legally own a gun to help sellers stay legal.

So we're saying some disabilities (if we want to call them such), mean one must be denied a right? Does level of control of the condition matter? Does being "at risk" warrant denial?

(I'm not specifically arguing with you, just trying to better flesh out the discussion because I think it's deeply complex)

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Repealed? No. Amended, fuck yes.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So we're saying some disabilities (if we want to call them such), mean one must be denied a right? Does level of control of the condition matter? Does being "at risk" warrant denial?

(I'm not specifically arguing with you, just trying to better flesh out the discussion because I think it's deeply complex)

Some mental health issues will be enough to "dq" someone from owning firearms, hands down. mental health history, actual criminal record (if any), will also need to play a part.

People can also get a second opinion, if they feel that a particular psychiatrist or psychologist isn't providing an accurate or complete profile.

For instance, someone has history of violence, making threats, and a psychiatrist finds the patient has anger management problems, anxiety, depression. Probably not a good idea to give that person a firearm right now. Recommend treatment, and the patient can request a 2nd opinion from a different licensed professional.

Just my .02, since mental health can vary so much, I'm very curious what the limits or requirements will be at first.

I'd rather a stringent mental health evaluation for licensure approval and for periodic renewal as opposed to jumping to banning certain firearms.

I'd also like to see state/local militia membership a requirement, with a focus on physical fitness, team encouragement, and firearms training.

 

[Greenman]

I'm surprised at the vote up to this point, I assumed repeal would be way ahead.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah, I don't see how limiting 2nd amendment to only muskets (or bolt action rifles depending on how generous one is) just because forefathers did not foresee assault rifles argument makes any sense.

Forefathers did not foresee a lot of things. They did not foresee invention of email and phone. Should we only expect privacy when sending old fashioned letters? And give up our privacy when we send an email or talk on the phone? I don't think so.

You can't have it both ways.

I actually think the forefathers did foresee advanced weapons and technology they could not fathom at the time of writing. It is why they didn't say the right to bear muskets when writing the second amendment. It is also why they added in the ability to amend the constitution as new issues\technologies arise. It is just people want to circumvent amending the constitution for expediency sake by writing bad laws that get overturned. Then they get butt hurt over it.

 

[RamIt]

I voted no repeal but wish the gun laws were A LOT more strict.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm surprised at the vote up to this point, I assumed repeal would be way ahead.

Same here.

I hadn't considered that Stevens might be an extremist on the subject of gun control.

I wonder if eski would vote to repeal it.

 

[Lanyap]

Don’t “stolen” guns make up a large percentage of gun homicides in the US? Seems like part of the discussion around gun homicide reduction should address these irresponsible owners/dealers. Perhaps even setup extremely harsh penalties for possession of a stolen gun? I know the NRA brings this fact up but their answer seems to be to arm more people. Seems like a good strategy for selling guns but not sure if it’s the best way to actually reduce the number of people being murdered.

Yes. That's because criminals steal them from law abiding gun owners and other criminals and then they kill people.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes. That's because criminals steal them from law abiding gun owners and other criminals and then they kill people.

Morgus the Magnificent!

 

[sactoking]

It's funny how no other country on earth has a weapons law generally construed as broadly as the second amendment and most of them seem to be doing fine from a "preventing governmental overreach" perspective.

 

[HomerJS]

In favor of amending the 2nd to clarify

 

[HomerJS]

It's funny how no other country on earth has a weapons law generally construed as broadly as the second amendment and most of them seem to be doing fine from a "preventing governmental overreach" perspective.

That's because we know more then the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Atreus21]

That's because we know more then the rest of the civilized world.

Considering we are the guarantor of security for the rest of the civilized world, there might be something to that.

 

[Lanyap]

Morgus the Magnificent!

My idol growing up in New Orleans (actually Metairie).

 

[Atreus21]

My idol growing up in New Orleans (actually Metairie).

No kidding. I grew up in Lakeview. We're in Algiers now.

My dad watched him all the time.

 

[HomerJS]

Considering we are the guarantor of security for the rest of the civilized world, there might be something to that.

We used to be

 

[sactoking]

We used to be

Don't forget that the second amendment has no bearing on the organized military so the United States could still be the "guarantor of security for the rest of the civilized world" even in its absence.

In other words, it's a bullshit statement.

 

[Lanyap]

The word musket does not appear in the 2A. The right to bear arms, within the context of a well regulated militia, is still applicable and relevent as written. It’s called the National Guard.

The National Guard used to be totally controlled by the states and were considered militia but now National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm surprised at the vote up to this point, I assumed repeal would be way ahead.

That's because you are in a bubble.




(in fairness to you though, you aren't in that bubble super deep which is why you were able to at least recognize the results for what they were)

 

[sandorski]

Well rather than a simple yes no, what could be done to amend the 2nd? I would say be more precise in the wording.

2: Oops, redacted

 

[compuwiz1]

I'm surprised at the vote up to this point, I assumed repeal would be way ahead.

You mean you overestimated the number of pinkos here?

 

[theeedude]

No, because its original purpose is becoming more relevant.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

My vote is Fuck No. I only disagree with the idea that if everything that is ever invented is covered under the Second Amendment as long as it discharges a projectile. I didn't see that language in there. What I see are rulings that continually re-define what a firearm actually is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates

The latest:

(3)
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Pretty sure when they wrote the Amendment there were no repeaters, no automatics, etc. There were only flintlocks and whatnot. Yet today anything that discharges a projectile and can be operated by one person is called a firearm, except for the very firearms that were intended to be protected by the Second Amendment when it was written.

If you wish to expand the meaning of the Second Amendment to include any weapon that someone can hold and discharge a projectile you are constantly expanding and changing the meaning to reflect the time.

If you can change the meaning that way than you should be able change the meaning of the Amendment in other ways as well.

By this interpretation fully automatic air guns would be allowed.
There was a semi automatic airgun used in the Lewis and Clark expedition invented in 1779 (pre constitution) 20 round magazine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

No mucking fusket here.