Is it time to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

I think we should mirror Israel's gun laws. They make more sense than what we have now.

I'm Canadian, so I'm on the outside looking in, you could say.

I understand your 2nd amendment's right to bear arms. What I'm sure of though is that, at the time it was written, there was no way for the forefathers to ever imagine assault types weapons that shoot bullets at the rate of 45 rounds per minute. Guns that can mow down a crowd in the blink of an eye. Such a weapon would have been inconceivable to them. Had they known, would you not think that they would have reconsidered adding the amendment to the constitution ?

I would make serious changes. Change the thought process that owning a gun is a right - it should be viewed as a privilege that must be earned.

1) Ban assault rifles.
2) Require a written and skills test that must be passed to obtain a license to purchase a gun. Require updates every few years.
3) Require an annual registration fee for guns.

Why are we even talking about punishing all gun owners based on what a few have done?

Imagine the outrage if all Muslims were punished for what a few have done - - - oh wait, there is outrage. Ironically that outrage is from the same people who also want to take guns away from everyone based on a few.

Check out the fillibuster going on in the senate now.

They are talking about banning Automatic Rifles and requiring proper background checks and waiting period on ALL weapons purchased.


The 2nd Amendment allows for a well armed militia. I think it is time for an amendment that specifically speaks to the right of individuals to own guns, list the type and purpose.

It does not have to be an all or nothing.

NO ONE NEEDS AN Automatic or ASSAULT RIFFLE outside of the military.

Repeal the 2nd amendment? No way.

Is it time for e.v.e.r.y.o.n.e. to sit down, have a conversation which includes LISTENING to both sides, and then coming up with some serious compromises FROM BOTH SIDES? Absofuckinglutely

People who are determined to kill, no matter their motivation, will kill by whatever means necessary.  They will find some weapon to use to accomplish this goal. It could be anything sharp, from a nail file to a pen, even some of my hair dodads.  It could be blunt force from a rock, a chair, a fist.  It could be a car driven through a crowd or a fertilizer truck. Even a harmless everyday object like a crockpot filled with shrapnel. It could be poison or a contaminant in the food or water supplies, Tylenol anyone? We can mitigate and restrict all we can, bury it all under red tape and paper work all we want, but it's not going to stop a truly motivated killer.

Guns get the blame because they are loud and scary and make it so damn efficient to do the job quickly. They have generally been the weapon of choice in recent times, but I'd imagine most had a backup plan. Guns get jammed, lost, run out of ammo, after all. But it's the weapon both the "good" guys and the "bad" guys rally around.  Focusing on the weapon choice itself takes the focus off the perp. We can disregard mental illness, radicalism, whatever made the person chose to commit the crime. And in our desperation to make it stop we can overlook the salient fact that this person is a criminal, and as such would not likely care about breaking the law to get a weapon to carry out their plan. Whatever weapon chosen, the person was the problem first and foremost.

You can paper push this into the ground but it's not going to keep the criminals from being armed. They will steal them, buy them on the black market, borrow them, trade for them, whatever. Most places there are already restrictions and such in place.  They don't seem to be working, partly for improper enforcement. I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater will help: if we can't enforce and properly use what we've got, what makes us think we'll do any better with new laws?

I'm seeing otherwise rational people flipping their lids over this.  People joining the NRA I'd never in a million years expect because they feel they need the protection a powerful lobby can provide so their voices are heard. There's been a run on local stores for guns and ammo. People are afraid.  They want to protect their families and hobbies. Most of them are no doubt law-abiding with no nefarious plans. But I have no doubt shit will get real if someone tries to get their guns. If enough of these people were to band together, there would be armed resistance.  

So then what?  Troops are sent in to squash it. Can you see where this is going?

SO no, repealing the 2nd isn't the way to go. I believe it's important for a nation and individuals to be able to defend themselves. What we have isn't working, but I think that's partly because it focuses on only one aspect of the issue. There's so much more involved here than just gun ownership.

I'd also like to agree with the previous poster who pointed out that there are many people with a legitimate need for guns, as hard as that is for some of us to wrap our heads around.  Hunting for food aside, some peas live in places with horrible police response time. They might not even be in BFE, just an understaffed area due to budget cuts. A lot can go wrong in the time it takes the cops to show up. And this counts towards those with specific fears as well, not just the blanket "home protection." What about the people that are stalked, have useless restraining orders, what have you? Not every gun owner is a nutter planning a tragedy or worried about the country being invaded or joining a militia.  But because we can't tell who is and who isn't when they buy them we all have to be "punished" for the actions of others. Except the bad guys aren't the ones being punished because they probably aren't getting them legally anyway, already own them, or will just build something even nastier. Just because some of these shooters have bothered with getting them legally doesn't mean it's always that way.

I'd also like to point out that the legal system is in no way equipped to deal with the number of officers and hours required to enforce such a thing, nor do we have the jail space. 

No and it is posts like these that make people fight the more sensible gun laws.

No.

If you don't want a gun, you are at liberty to not own one. You are not at liberty to exist in a world without guns. Sorry.

Did our founding fathers foresee automatic weapons... probably not.
Did they foresee the need for an armed militia? Yes, they did. I believe they saw the need for a new nation to have a militia but also could see the need in the far future based on the historic changes they were familiar with up to that point.
Do we need an armed citizen militia today? No we don't.
Will we need an armed citizen militia in the future? I believe we will.  I especially believe we will if we repeal the right to bear arms. At that point it will be too late to restore the 2nd amendment and we will be an easy take over. Who ever controls the military controls the nation.  I believe the ability to the everyday citizen to raise up against the military is a key "check and balance" against a government controlled military.

We assume our government can't be overthrown.... that would be a very wrong assumption.

No, not necessarily repeal... I posted this earlier..



[/quote]


People hunt, people collect guns, people use them to protect themselves in their homes.   But what I know is that MOST rational, non-radical people KNOW that they can accomplish those things WITHOUT "assault-military-combat-automatic-type" guns.  


I've been reading (here and other sources) and conversing (in real life) about the SEMANTICS and terms used to describe "assault-military-combat-automatic-type" guns, and what I have gleaned from those reads and convo's is that it is just that--semantics.  Someone upthread posted that in order to have a discussion about the guns, before anyone can think about banning them is understanding what they do/are.  While that may be somewhat true in the finite terms of a bill/law to be written, those types of statements are just to shut down any gun control advocates from speaking about gun control.  We really don't need to have all those very specific, technical terms to have a discussion--WE KNOW that these guns do massive damage at an alarming rate!!!  IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT THOSE WHO ARE MASS SHOOTERS CHOOSE THIS/THESE WEAPONS SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSEFULLY--they are choosing the weapons that are going to do the most damage in the least amount of time, because that is what they are planning.   So for those of you who want to keep talking about gun control, please don't be deterred or hushed by those who try to silence you because they say that you obviously do not know anything about gun types.  The term "assault weapon" in itself IS vague.  It USUALLY means a semi-automatic, high round capacity gun. Where you can hold down a trigger and it fires repeatedly and rapidly until you release the trigger.  In some states, these types of guns have been already banned.   A semi-automatic only fires as fast as a person can pull the trigger.  Advertisements for the "assualt-combat-military type" guns boast that it can be possible to get off 800 rounds in a minute if you know your weapon. (Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook got off 145 rounds in just 5 minutes)   High capacity guns usually mean that it can hold 10 rounds or more, the most typical and common is 30 rounds, with clips that can be changed out in just seconds (which is why it has been the gun of choice for mass shooters).


There are the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" camp (which I find repulsive and insulting to even be posted by someone on threads where shootings take place!)  There are the "they are coming for our guns" "they are taking away my rights" camp. This seems to be the cry of the radicals, as the proposals since at least Sandy Hook put before Congress have not even come close to taking away all guns, or breaking any Second Amendment rights.  These statements are made--especially in discussions right after mass shootings to keep us fearful that if we do try to ban a certain type of gun, that we won't be protected.  

I am far from banning all guns.  We own them. We shoot.  We have LEO's in our immediate family.  We are no strangers to guns.

It is a fact that those states and country's with stricter gun control laws have much less death by way of guns.  I know that I could protect myself WITHOUT  the non-assault-military-combat-automatic types of guns, as most rational, non-radical people could.  We should not be making it easy for those who have a devious, murderous mind ease of access to these types of weapons.  I do realize that for a very determined, devious, want to be murderer, there is nothing likely going to stop them, but again, why make it easy?  You don't see these murderers choosing the fully automatic/machine guns to do the task (because they are illegal and not easily obtainable).  It is a myth that the bad guy will just get another weapon and be able to kill just as many people in the same fashion.  That is just simply not true and stats lend evidence to that.

It is also a fact, that since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, use of these types of weapons have increased, and the number of people killed with these weapons have also greatly increased. 

Yes, it is also a fact that right after any mass shooting, there is the cry that WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, NOW.   Nothing has been done yet, after many tragic losses at the hands of people using these assault type weapons.   We do need to do something.  Nothing that is going on (i.e. allowing these weapons to be sold to civilians) is working, it is just getting worse.    It needs to start somewhere and myself and many others "in the middle of the road" feel the same. I think people are getting so devastated and frustrated that any measures to even TRY to reduce gun deaths are being quashed by Congress.

It is a fact that the NRA is the biggest contributor of congressional elections.  For a reason--they want their interests (no/little gun control) protected.  They shut down (with money) any attempts to try. Guns are all about money and politics.

What I learned most from my real life conversations, with other gun owners and LEO (non-family member ones) is that when it comes to the social aspect of guns/gun control, those who are the loudest voices tend to be at the polar opposite ends of the discussion.  I do like to think that I am middle of the road, as we own guns, like them and don't feel the need to have all guns banned or restricted, however when trying to have conversations over the internet with someone with a long time pattern of what you believe is to be mentally unstable and offensive, then lively arguments ensue and the real conversation gets lost in all the tit for tat.  I am trying here for real conversation.

What I was reminded of (and hated hearing from my LEO friends) was advice that I have doled out myself--you keep banging your head against the wall expecting a different result! I'm not going to make any difference to the radical.  They reminded me that 1 or 2 radical thinking people in a message group, on the internet is not representative of the majority.   I learned that no civilian gun owners that I know have ever put themselves into an imaginary scenario that called for the firing of massive amounts of rounds of ammo at their local restaurant or club!

We looked around (we were at a vigil the other night) and saw so many who were hurting, helping, and working to advocate for the people of Orlando.  Many were there organizing for gun control (specifically banning the combat/military/assault type weapons).  The LEO's that I know are also for bans on these types of weapons.  They are the ones who are usually first responders to the situation, and they themselves do not carry them on their person to use! 

There will likely always be debates about gun control.  I do believe that the majority of gun owners want reasonable steps to be taken, such as banning assault-military-combat types of weapons to START to make our country safer, closing purchasing loopholes, and keeping better track.  As one of my LEO friends put it, "cut off the supply, and it starves the downline".  Yes, bad guys will still try to obtain illegal weapons, however, to even have a fighting chance and make a difference, it has to start somewhere, and because of those who are mass shooters are choosing a very specific type of weapon, that would be a great place to begin in banning/restricting.

In speaking to protecting one's self (home/person) one does not need that much firepower from a weapon to protect themselves.  The risk of causing injury to many others is just too high of a risk.

I'll end for now with that my hope is that those who really do want to have the reasonable conversations about gun control, talk about responsible measures to ban certain types of guns, close loopholes, etc. to make it more difficult for devious minded people/would be murderers to have access to these types of guns, will still speak up, talk, ask questions, be heard over the radicals and extremists who refuse to consider or budge or who try to shut down and block conversations about reasonable and responsible discussion regarding gun control.  Your voices matter, they really, really do.
[/quote]

Honestly I would say they would have given it.  Look at what Ben Franklin did.

He would have loved the internet to start the movement.
Nearly all of Franklin’s printing and writing was undertaken for profit, but in the two months before his retirement in 1748, he devoted his press to a political cause: pressuring the Quaker-dominated Assembly to establish a militia for defense against marauding attacks by the French. Franklin employed all the skills he had learned as a writer and printer to promote self-defense, including broadsides, blank forms, lottery tickets, and pamphlets. He thus initiated a media campaign that brought together speech (meetings and sermons), printing, and manuscript (the signing of forms, petitions, and lottery tickets, as well as the writing of speeches and pamphlets.

It's way past time to rewrite the second amendment.

In the interest of a real conversation and trying to understand where you're coming from, before we go any further, I want to respectfully ask if this a typo: