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.
I do not understand why so many people believe a thief, mugger, burglar or other violent criminal should be protected by law from the threat of being wounded or killed while committing a crime? This seems to be the attitude of the people that want to eliminate gun ownership by everyone but the government and the licensed guards of the elite. Why is it a sin for a poor person to defend themselves from violent assault but acceptable for a rich person or government official to be defended by an armed guard. If I have to go about life without any way of defending myself so does the elite.
IMHO - Being armed and able to defend yourself is a fundamental right of being alive because it helps you stay that way.
So, according to your post if the second amendment were appealed legally and through constitutional means you would take up your arms and rebel? I have read this type of post before. For clarification purposes who exactly would you take up arms against? Would you start shooting at: the local police? The national guard? Government offices? Your congressman?
This is another typical post from someone who professes to "love" the constitution but hates the constitutional republic we live one because it is either his way or no way at all. That is not a democratic idea, it is a totalitarian one. So, who really wants to gut the bill of rights? The answer is clear from your post.
Well, the likelihood of repealing the second amendment within any of our lifetimes is effectively zero. The second amendment has actually gotten stronger over the last two decades. With concealed carry spreading across the country, as well as open carry.
I don't mean to be hostile towards your hypothetical question, but it is so impossible as to be pointless to even entertain it. To amend the constitution would require 3/4ths of the states. That means 38 states. Or more importantly, only twelve of the states would be able to oppose the amendment.
To put that in perspective, the Brady campaign rates state gun laws from A to F. They give 26 of all US states the lowest score of "F".
If you were to actually try to push through a constitutional amendment tomorrow. And upon realizing that the Congress was incapable of passing the proposed amendment, you decided to push for constitutional conventions in the states. How many states would even agree to amending the second-amendment? And amend it to say what exactly?
In my opinion, I don't think a single state, even liberal states like New York or California would be able to agree to change the second amendment. The people in rural areas of those states would go absolutely nuts(with support from other states). And a proposal by any state to repeal the second amendment would backfire badly.
The problem with the second amendment, is that supporters of the second amendment tend to be overwhelmingly rural, and opponents are overwhelmingly urban. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have open carry in a densely packed urban environment like New York City. No one wants a bunch of people open carrying on the subway or bus. And for that matter, open carrying through crowds at Time Square. Rural and urban areas need to be able to have different gun laws. Period.
Anyone proposing gun law changes at a national or state level is a moron. Especially something like a total ban on guns.
As for the argument that some might "take up arms against the government". You paint the picture as if they are going to be raiding federal military bases with AR-15's. Or gunning down police officers in the streets. That is ignorant.
What would actually happen, is that they would declare themselves to be independent from the US government. That could either be a state, a county, a region, a city, or even a parcel of land(IE the compound of the Branch Davidians at Waco). And when the US government decides to raid their compound and arrest the "rebels", there will end up being a firefight(you should read about the missing door from the Waco Siege).
The problem with guns, is that they are at the heart of America. There are now about as many guns in America as there are people. You are a fool if you can't see why that is a problem.
The best thing that could ever happen, would be to raise doubts about the constitutionality of the 14th amendment. That would take the power to interpret the second amendment out of the hands of the Supreme Court. Thereby turning the issue over to the states. Then the states largely need to back off and let the cities/counties handle the issue on a local level.
This isn't an issue that can be solved on a national level, and if you try, you will surely destroy the country.
Well, the likelihood of repealing the second amendment within any of our lifetimes is effectively zero. The second amendment has actually gotten stronger over the last two decades. With concealed carry spreading across the country, as well as open carry.
I don't mean to be hostile towards your hypothetical question, but it is so impossible as to be pointless to even entertain it. To amend the constitution would require 3/4ths of the states. That means 38 states. Or more importantly, only twelve of the states would be able to oppose the amendment.
To put that in perspective, the Brady campaign rates state gun laws from A to F. They give 26 of all US states the lowest score of "F".
If you were to actually try to push through a constitutional amendment tomorrow. And upon realizing that the Congress was incapable of passing the proposed amendment, you decided to push for constitutional conventions in the states. How many states would even agree to amending the second-amendment? And amend it to say what exactly?
In my opinion, I don't think a single state, even liberal states like New York or California would be able to agree to change the second amendment. The people in rural areas of those states would go absolutely nuts(with support from other states). And a proposal by any state to repeal the second amendment would backfire badly.
The problem with the second amendment, is that supporters of the second amendment tend to be overwhelmingly rural, and opponents are overwhelmingly urban. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have open carry in a densely packed urban environment like New York City. No one wants a bunch of people open carrying on the subway or bus. And for that matter, open carrying through crowds at Time Square. Rural and urban areas need to be able to have different gun laws. Period.
Anyone proposing gun law changes at a national or state level is a moron. Especially something like a total ban on guns.
As for the argument that some might "take up arms against the government". You paint the picture as if they are going to be raiding federal military bases with AR-15's. Or gunning down police officers in the streets. That is ignorant.
What would actually happen, is that they would declare themselves to be independent from the US government. That could either be a state, a county, a region, a city, or even a parcel of land(IE the compound of the Branch Davidians at Waco). And when the US government decides to raid their compound and arrest the "rebels", there will end up being a firefight(you should read about the missing door from the Waco Siege).
The problem with guns, is that they are at the heart of America. There are now about as many guns in America as there are people. You are a fool if you can't see why that is a problem.
The best thing that could ever happen, would be to raise doubts about the constitutionality of the 14th amendment. That would take the power to interpret the second amendment out of the hands of the Supreme Court. Thereby turning the issue over to the states. Then the states largely need to back off and let the cities/counties handle the issue on a local level.
This isn't an issue that can be solved on a national level, and if you try, you will surely destroy the country.
First, I agree with you that the chances of the 2nd amendment ever getting repealed is less than zero. But if that is the case, why all the hyperbole about rebellions and armed uprisings if the 2nd amendment is never going to be repealed? It will not happen in our lifetimes anyway. All this language does is inflame true nut jobs who live in fantasy worlds. All I say is tone down the rhetoric.
First, I agree with you that the chances of the 2nd amendment ever getting repealed is less than zero. But if that is the case, why all the hyperbole about rebellions and armed uprisings if the 2nd amendment is never going to be repealed? It will not happen in our lifetimes anyway. All this language does is inflame true nut jobs who live in fantasy worlds. All I say is tone down the rhetoric.
The problem which I suppose I probably didn't explain well enough from my talk of decentralization, the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court. Is that currently, the second amendment exists only through the interpretations of our Supreme Court.
The most recent Supreme Court cases on the second-amendment was "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago". Both of those Supreme Court cases went 5-4. And both were over the "individual right" to bear arms(as opposed to the right of a militia).
The problem with those cases, is that they were decided 5-4. If say, Scalia hadn't been on the court, the court could have just as easily ruled 4-5 the other way. Thus declaring that individuals did not have a right to bear arms. And thus the gun bans in places like Washington D.C., Chicago, and New York city could have stood.
And not only that, had they interpreted the second amendment to only allow militia's the right to bear arms. It could open the floodgates for the Congress and states to both regulate, as well as confiscate guns. Let alone the fact that the Supreme Court could have even made effectively legislative decisions from the bench(IE, what they did with forced busing).
Moreover, the president himself has enjoyed using executive orders to bypass the other branches. Which also sets a precedent for future presidents to do the same. As long as the national firearms act is on the books, and the Supreme Court is as divided as they can be, then there really isn't a guarantee of a second amendment. At any time it could effectively disappear with no change at all to the constitution.
Which is why I stated, the best thing we could do going forward, would be to decentralize the gun question. If you leave it in the hands of any branch of the Federal government. Then there is no safety, there is no security. There is perpetual friction and agitation, and if someone is stupid enough and tries to go too far on a national or to some extent a state level. They are going to create the kind of chaos that could backfire in a very bad way.
The problem is, both sides are playing national politics. And they sort of have to, that is the nature of national political parties.
I'm just saying, I see no point at all in trying to do anything about the second amendment. It is a lost cause, and pursuing it too strongly can lead to nothing but destruction.
So, according to your post if the second amendment were appealed legally and through constitutional means you would take up your arms and rebel? I have read this type of post before. For clarification purposes who exactly would you take up arms against? Would you start shooting at: the local police? The national guard? Government offices? Your congressman?
This is another typical post from someone who professes to "love" the constitution but hates the constitutional republic we live under because it is either his way or no way at all. That is not a democratic idea, it is a totalitarian one. So, who really wants to gut the bill of rights? The answer is clear from your post.
Well if the 2nd amendment was repealed I don't think my local police or the national guard would be a problem. My state likely would have seceded from the union along with more than 10-20 others, so this would be an orderly rebellion. The police and guard serve the state, so they would be on the side of freedom. It would be the forces of this new nation you would need to subdue in order to rob us of our freedom. I will never submit to socialists, statists or other left wing nuts who threaten my freedom. I will continue to vote for those who will stand up for those freedoms, and for people willing to stand up to the threat. Red state America is pretty unified against the socialism on the left coast, and up north. I think you understand the point of view I have very well. Hopefully the knowledge that millions feel the way I do will prevent those left wingers from trying to undo our freedom. This is not 1865, we are much more economically developed and our friends in the western states would join us this time, so one should not expect the same results the second time around. Red state America is the heart and core of this nation, our rights will be respected.
Doesn't it need to be changed anyway? Like, aren't even convicted murderers who somehow get out of prison before dying, technically entitled to own a gun, Constitutionally speaking? We've already started "infringing", so isn't this all very arbitrary - deciding who else shouldn't own a gun at this point?
Idk, food for thought.
I look at it this way concerning former felons. if they get out of prison without being on probation, then I have no problem with them owning firearms. if people think they are too dangerous to have firearms, then keep them in prison.
they was talking on the radio, how the government being behind the fast and furious gun deal and also being behind the school shooting to get the public so mad that they will force everybody to turn in the guns. aint it weird how lately the doctors and school teacher have gone crazy over anything that might be gun related
I look at it this way concerning former felons. if they get out of prison without being on probation, then I have no problem with them owning firearms. if people think they are too dangerous to have firearms, then keep them in prison.
And rest assured I have no problem with this reasoning in and of itself. But the Constitution doesn't allow for these exceptions. It just says the right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed... and that's it! So I do think the amendment needs to be changed, or people should stop pretending that any debate to do with guns is about the Constitution. It clearly isn't. People lean on the Constitution when it's convenient; look the other way when it isn't.
And rest assured I have no problem with this reasoning in and of itself. But the Constitution doesn't allow for these exceptions. It just says the right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed... and that's it! So I do think the amendment needs to be changed, or people should stop pretending that any debate to do with guns is about the Constitution. It clearly isn't. People lean on the Constitution when it's convenient; look the other way when it isn't.
Damn right...
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.
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.
