Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[imported_tajmahal]

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.

Tell it to the Venezuelans.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You mean you overestimated the number of pinkos here?

This, but even the pinkos know how unlikely it would be to actually repeal the 2nd Amendment.

 

[compuwiz1]

This, but even the pinkos know how unlikely it would be to actually repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Not too worried about it happening, except there might be some purple haired people in vagina costumes, pummeling us with rubber sex toys, in an attempt to grab our guns. lol

 

[jackstar7]

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.

It's as though a politically engaged populace is it's own safeguard.

But you know, we need to grind ourselves 40-80hrs/wk so we can afford a decent TV to enjoy... at some point.

 

[soundforbjt]

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.

Not really semi auto since you had to raise the rifle to a vertical position each time to load the next ball.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Not really semi auto since you had to raise the rifle to a vertical position each time to load the next ball.

At least it's certainly not a single shot, load from the muzzle firearm. Refinements to firearms were expected back in those days.

 

[soundforbjt]

At least it's certainly not a single shot, load from the muzzle firearm. Refinements to firearms were expected back in those days.

It is most certainly a single shot, you couldn’t call it semi auto since it couldn’t fire with multiple trigger pulls unless you just wanted to shoot air.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It is most certainly a single shot, you couldn’t call it semi auto since it couldn’t fire with multiple trigger pulls unless you just wanted to shoot air.

No, it had a 20 round magazine and only required a hand movement to reload it, even easier than a lever action rifle and easy to see how refinements would make it capable of doing more. The guys that wrote the Constitution were very aware of technology.

 

[soundforbjt]

No, it had a 20 round magazine and only required a hand movement to reload it, even easier than a lever action rifle and easy to see how refinements would make it capable of doing more. The guys that wrote the Constitution were very aware of technology.

Two hand movement since it had to be raised to a vertical position. And I’m sure it wasn’t in wide use or ownership and wasn’t even manufactured in the US.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Two hand movement since it had to be raised to a vertical position. And I’m sure it wasn’t in wide use or ownership and wasn’t even manufactured in the US.

Face it, it wrecks the whole bullshit meme about muzzle loading muskets being the only weapon covered by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[soundforbjt]

Face it, it wrecks the whole bullshit meme about muzzle loading muskets being the only weapon covered by the 2nd Amendment.

It’s not even proven to have been used by Lewis & Clark. So no evidence at all, just speculation.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It’s not even proven to have been used by Lewis & Clark. So no evidence at all, just speculation.

Why would that matter?
Just for fun read Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose. Great book.


and from my earlier link

"The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on the expedition.[1][2]"

Read it ......this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

 

[Alpha One Seven]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

In light of the column by former SCOTUS justice John Paul Stevens, I thought it was a question worth asking.

For myself I don't think it should be repealed, even as a non-gun owner. I believe the citizenry should be empowered to defend itself, if at the cost of gun crime and death.

No.

 

[soundforbjt]

Why would that matter?
Just for fun read Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose. Great book.


and from my earlier link

"The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on the expedition.[1][2]"

Read it ......this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

Where did they get compressed air, at the gas station? No, it took 1500 pumps from a wagon mounted air pump. Not very practical. But it was the first BBgun..

 

[Alpha One Seven]

Why would that matter?
Just for fun read Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose. Great book.


and from my earlier link

"The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on the expedition.[1][2]"

Read it ......this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

I don't think any sane person would argue that the amendment pertains only to a certain class of firearms, and certainly not to one that is no longer in use.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

Where did they get compressed air, at the gas station?

Air is all around us, not just at gas stations. lol
My kids have a pump bb and pellet gun they target shoot with, they never go to a gas station between shots.

 

[soundforbjt]

Air is all around us, not just at gas stations. lol
My kids have a pump bb and pellet gun they target shoot with, they never go to a gas station between shots.

Read my addition, it took 1500 pumps from a wagon mounted pump to charge a cylinder for 30 shots whose power declined with each shot..

 

[Alpha One Seven]

Read my addition, it took 1500 pumps from a wagon mounted pump to charge a cylinder for 30 shots whose power declined with each shot..

Yep, no gas station! lol

 

[Paladin3]

Only someone with a precursory is understanding of mental health would say something as simple as "it's not that complicated."

Which psychiatrists can make this determination? How long does it last? Do they need to support it with any type of evidence? Is a second opinion required? How sure do we have to be that the patient is a threat, it's not exactly binary, is it?

Allowing psychiatrists to strip individuals of their Constitutional rights without due process would never come back to bite us in the ass, right? /s

 

[Paladin3]

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.

So, penalize victims for the actions of criminals? I think it's very possible someone could take very reasonable precautions to secure a weapon and it still could get stolen. In fact, I don't think there is ever going to be a situation where a gun can't be stolen if the criminal is motivated enough.

Next, you'll be wanting to jail rape victims for not dressing down enough. <--- This is a strawman argument offered in jest to make a point. If you call me out on it without address my first paragraph you are a coward.

 

[Paladin3]

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)

I don't think we can have hard and fast laws that cover every situation correctly. That's why we have courts to decide when something is reasonable.

This trend in demanding more explicit and well defined laws is wrong, IMHO. It's better that laws clearly define the intent and what problem they are trying to solve. Determining what specifically is and isn't legal should be part of the interpretation process by the courts. Otherwise, we fall into the trap of zero tolerance laws that rob us of the ability to use our judgement, as exercised by our courts, other branches of the government and the democratic process. That means more instance of kids with gun shaped chicken nuggets being expelled for violating the technical terms of the school's zero tolerance gun free zone.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Did some ambient research since my last posts in regards to the 2nd amendment.

In a modern sense, the second amendment has an unintended responsibility for the State. In which, the State absolutely must provide arms and absolutely must provide regulation to those that can receive arms.

The second amendment is enhanced by the oath one declares at conception/birth in the United States or the one declares via naturalization;

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God

Stating this;

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

or this;

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Is a binding reaffirmation of the oath one is born into, etc.

Those born in the States are naturally considered the Militia. Those that are naturalized are also naturally considered the Militia. The Militia is everyone and it is protected by other amendments; blacks and other races and women of these other races are part of the Militia. etc, etc.

Also, the first regulation is in the 2nd amendment; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, any regulation must require an exclusion clause that is accepted by the people. The people must decide who or what can't keep or bear Arms. If the people can't decide it is bucked up to local, then state, then federal gov, etc. As they are binding legal representations of the people, till they are not.

An exclusion clause is basically; This person has mental health issues, he is not required to keep or bear arms. In fact, he is excluded from this right as it is a freedom that is against the freedoms of others, etc.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

Someone with a history of violence and making threats is already banned from owning a firearm if it can be proven in a court of law.

Demanding every gun owner undergo mandatory mental health evaluation is a dangerous step. That's assuming them guilty until proven innocent and a huge violation of privacy. It's not a reasonable thing to ask, regardless of how well it might work, unless we are going to toss the idea of a free society as we currently enjoy it out the window.

Mandatory militia membership and physical fitness can't possibly be a requirement to own a gun. That would basically disarm the elderly and anyone less than fit. Anyone not mentally, emotionally or physically capable enough to be in the military would likewise be stripped of the 2A rights. And what would we do with hundreds of millions of folks in the military? Who would pay for that?

 

[Paladin3]

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.

How do you think the vast majority of military members comes down on the subject of further restrictions to civilian gun ownership? Who do you think are some of the most staunch supporters of individual rights? Could it be the very folks who fight and die to defend those rights?

 

[jackstar7]

Someone with a history of violence and making threats is already banned from owning a firearm if it can be proven in a court of law.

Demanding every gun owner undergo mandatory mental health evaluation is a dangerous step. That's assuming them guilty until proven innocent and a huge violation of privacy. It's not a reasonable thing to ask, regardless of how well it might work, unless we are going to toss the idea of a free society as we currently enjoy it out the window.

Wanting to own a gun when it's empirically a negative health risk is cause for concern.

Also, what is free about this society?