Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you change the 2nd Amendment
Yes. It needs some type of revision. 18 21.18%
No. 67 78.82%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2013, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,321,941 times
Reputation: 7990

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermaine88 View Post
Lets assume those who wrote the 2nd Amendment didn't foresee Americans walking into schools, theatres, Churches, Neighborhoods, or whereever and shooting innocent people.

...
Ban guns from certain areas?
Ban certain guns
Ban all guns.
Limit or expand Concealed/Open Carry laws.
etc.
Other.

What is your idea of a Gun Law you that think would be fair?
If you look at the mass shootings, in almost every case there was a mental health issue. So I argue that what we have is not a gun problem, but a psychiatry problem.

Banning certain types of guns will not work, because most of the technology of a gun resides in the cartridge, not in the gun itself. Banning certain kinds of guns is like trying to deal with the problem of alcoholism by banning easy-pour spouts.

If I were president, I'd initiate a massive push to try to reform the profession of psychiatry. It is a public health issue, not unlike containment of epidemics, and is therefore a proper government function, even from a libertarian point of view.

 
Old 06-07-2013, 06:33 AM
 
16,433 posts, read 22,154,382 times
Reputation: 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito View Post
No, no, no, no and no.
And hael no!
 
Old 06-07-2013, 07:38 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,941,096 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
I agree. . .you are in "an alternate universe". . . .a substantial number of deaths and injury, involving firearm really are "accidental". . . . If your friend or relative was injured or killed in such an incident, would you want the "gun owner" to be financially responsible for the incident? Would financial responsibility cause people to use better judgment and to "follow the rules"? OF COURSE criminals will probably not do that. . . ..just like they don't register and license the cars they have stolen and used in the commission of a crime. . . ..but for many thousands of people whose guns are actually used in true accidental shootings, it would cause them to be more vigilant about who has access to firearms, to remember to remove explosives from guns that are not currently in use, etc. etc. Financial responsibility is a great "motivator"!
Well, I've got a news flash for you. They already are, it's called a lawsuit and in some cases homeowners insurance kicks in.

As for removing bullets from a gun not in use, an empty gun is of no use whatsoever. No sane person is going to carry or keep an empty weapon for protection.
Following your ideas we need to get rid of pools,bathrooms,bicycles,skateboards etc.etc.
 
Old 06-07-2013, 07:42 AM
 
Location: NC
6,032 posts, read 9,189,893 times
Reputation: 6378
Hey guys... one problem here. Criminals don't follow laws or the constitution. Making more laws will only make things tougher for law abiding citizens, not criminals.

If anything it makes criminals safer.

Why do you think they always shoot up the GUN FREE ZONES .
 
Old 06-07-2013, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,660,138 times
Reputation: 24860
I agree. Gun Free Zones just create safer places for crazies to terrorize people. Robbers do not attack schools as there is very little profit to be made robbing half broke teachers. Criminals are not that stupid but crazy people are just crazy and unpredictable.

The most difficult thing for most people to realize is that there are no absolutely safe places. None. Making a place a GFZ does not make it safe, just more vulnerable. The idea of an armed population carrying guns, openly or concealed, increases safety by making violent crime committed by sane criminals much more dangerous and increases the likelihood of killing a crazy person before they can do mass murder.

Violence is inescapable no matter where you are but how you respond to an assault is your decision. You can remain peaceful and vulnerable to an assailant’s best nature or you can be ready to stop the assault without outside help. It is your life and your choice.

We have no choice but to respond to an attack by an insane assailant on children with overwhelming and deadly violence. Crazy assailants are not reasonable and killing them to stop their depredations is not a sin but a duty. It is not murder but pest control.
 
Old 06-07-2013, 08:10 AM
 
Location: NJ
23,446 posts, read 17,113,855 times
Reputation: 17476
I'd legalize saying the word 'gun' in school and eleswhere.

Use of the word 'assault weapon' would be banned from legislation as it is meaningless word.

Drawing pictures of guns would no longer be cause for punishment.

Any proposed legislation would need to be reviewed by the criminals in prison and gang memebrs to testify how their behavior would change. If the the behavior of these largest sources of violence would not be changed the legislation would not be approved.
 
Old 06-07-2013, 09:22 AM
 
15,803 posts, read 14,414,927 times
Reputation: 11861
How would I modify the Second Amendment? I'd get rid of the preable, which is confusing and not really applicable to anything (since the Heller decision stated that the 2A applies to individuals.)

It would simply be "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

End of story.
 
Old 06-07-2013, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,321,941 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
How would I modify the Second Amendment? I'd get rid of the preable, which is confusing and not really applicable to anything (since the Heller decision stated that the 2A applies to individuals.)

It would simply be "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

End of story.
Any change requires 2/3rds support from Congress, and then ratification by 38 of 50 states. We could effectively get the same result less expensively if we could just somehow explain to the masses how to read it.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

I guess the reality is that neither is likely to happen, and anyway it is somewhat of a moot point since the Heller ruling.
 
Old 06-07-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,690,103 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
How would I modify the Second Amendment? I'd get rid of the preable, which is confusing and not really applicable to anything (since the Heller decision stated that the 2A applies to individuals.)

It would simply be "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

End of story.
At least we have one good post. Many on this board don't realize the Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the citizens. It does not exist to define what is legal and not legal.

So if we were to change the 2nd amendment, it should only be to clarify it. Not to define what guns are illegal.
 
Old 06-07-2013, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,690,103 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Any change requires 2/3rds support from Congress, and then ratification by 38 of 50 states. We could effectively get the same result less expensively if we could just somehow explain to the masses how to read it.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

I guess the reality is that neither is likely to happen, and anyway it is somewhat of a moot point since the Heller ruling.
Good link. I particularly liked this portion which refutes the "collective rights" theory;

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:]
"(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:31 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top