Rewrite the Second Amendment
This Op-Ed, from the New York Times, is as relevant today as it was when it was first published on April 4, 2013. Nothing has changed in the last nine years but that doesn't mean nothing can ever change.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
AUSTIN, Tex.
THE elementary-school shootings in Newtown, Conn., in December produced two polar public reactions: fear among some Americans that the federal government will restrict gun rights, and hope among others that it will actually do so. Colorado, New York State and, most recently, Connecticut have clamped down on guns, while states like Texas, where I live, are considering legislation that would try to block the enforcement of federal gun regulations. The uncertain approach to guns is good for no one, except perhaps for gunmakers, whose sales have skyrocketed.
Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus on guns exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us.
Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, consider that hardly anyone is happy with our unstable status quo: gun enthusiasts fear their rights are under constant threat; gun-control advocates point to the danger of illegal guns and easy access to firearms.
It is actually quite unusual for gun rights to be included in a constitution. In our historical study of constitutions, my colleagues and I identified only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) that had ever included an explicit right to bear arms. Almost all of these constitutions have been in Latin America, and most were from the 19th century. Only three countries — Guatemala, Mexico and the United States — have a constitutional right to arms. Of the 15, ours is the only one that does not explicitly include a restrictive condition. Of course, many Americans, and a minority of the Supreme Court, believe that our “militia clause” amounts to one such a restriction — an interpretation the court rejected in 2008 when it ruled that the Second Amendment protected the individual right to bear arms.
What would happen if our right to gun ownership were explicitly protected and balanced against a concern for public safety?
Laws to permit the carrying of concealed weapons are on the rise, but even the most ardent gun-rights advocates would not argue that owners should be free to carry, say, AK-47’s as they walk down the street. One of the most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, in an opinion in the 2008 case, Heller v. District of Columbia, agreed with common-sense limitations like bans on guns in schools and government buildings.
Most Americans are committed to the Constitution and rely on the courts to adapt our antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments. Many of us trust the judiciary to balance rights against the inevitable restrictions on them. But we are left with the awkward, irresolvable phrasing of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.
Partly because of this ambiguity, the Second Amendment seemed almost irrelevant for most of our history. In the 19th and 20th centuries, many American towns and states regulated guns. In the deadly confrontation at the OK Corral in Tombstone, Ariz., in 1881, Wyatt Earp was enforcing a ban on carrying guns in public.
But in the 1980s, a movement to interpret the amendment as promoting the right to bear arms for self-defense emerged. It reached an apotheosis of sorts in the 2008 case, which struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. It was the first time the court had ever restricted gun regulation, but the 5-to-4 vote also suggests that the decision is not fixed doctrine.
This constitutional uncertainty should suggest to both sides the possibility of agreeing on a formal clarification of the constitutional text. Zealots will scoff, but many reasonable people would find reassurance in a revised Second Amendment that was properly balanced. Those who propose responsible limits, like background checks, would welcome constitutional support for common-sense safeguards. Those who worry about the slippery slope of encroachments on gun rights would find comfort in an explicit reassertion and reinforcement of the general right to bear arms.
Of course, even an uncontroversial constitutional amendment requires a minor miracle. The last time our Constitution changed, with the ratification of the 27th Amendment in 1992, it took a 10-year campaign (begun by a University of Texas undergraduate) to resuscitate an amendment that Congress had submitted to the states for ratification more than 200 years earlier.
A new gun-rights amendment would need to articulate a basic consensus that would let both sides claim victory. The alternative is more violent rhetoric — and more deadly violence.
Zachary Elkins is an associate professor of government at the University of Texas, a director of the Comparative Constitutions Project and an author of “The Endurance of National Constitutions.”
Tags
Who is online
270 visitors
This is my second and final contribution to the topic of "repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment."
I won't embarrass myself with an attempt at drafting a replacement version for the 2nd Amendment. That sounds like a job for a committee of experts.
Thanks for the contribution.
I'll think about it when Hollywood's endless violence under 1a is equivalent to 'fire in a crowded theater'.
Throw in almost all video games.
When I was a teen, the most dangerous video games were things like Frogger, asteroids and Galaga
Boy, have things changed.
Share your thoughts as to what revisions are necessary..
Remember the reality that criminals and crazy people pretty much ignore common sense gun laws and don't bother with background checks
Something like this???
The right to drive isn't protected under the Constitution.
I have no problem with the list for the most part.
What I have a problem with is the Liability insurance- that should be up to the individual owner. IMO hell no to giving insurance companies one damn cent more than they already extort from us. Most guns will never be used in a crime; nor will they even be used daily unlike cars. Mine sit locked in their cases 98% of the time hidden in their spots in case I need them. You also don't have nearly as many gun owners as you do vehicle owners. Now imagine everyone on a crowded highway during rush hour had a gun instead of a car. Now you get how ridiculous that sounds for liability insurance. The chances of that happening are non existent.
Allowing the states to administer standards for gun training, written test, practical testing, and licensing renewals is a non starter. You would have liberal states that would make owning a gun impossible by putting the price and standards for licensing so far out of reach no one would be able to get one.
There isn't a health requirement for owning a car. I know first hand. My mother owns a car that she isn't able to drive. She isn't able to get a license to drive due to her failing vision; but she can legally own it; insure it; and let it sit in her garage for the not so rare occasion that I have to drive one of her pets to the vet. They don't get to ride in my car- the shed and slobber mongers. If someone wants to own a gun for home defense; and that is all it is used for- then they shouldn't need a license.
I have come to the conclusion it doesn't matter. Even if congress had a bipartisan bill, a sensible one that most people could agree with, some faction would take it to court hoping the SC would knock it down.
People say that congress should act, should do this or that yet as soon as they do, organizations like the NRA will be right there with a pack a lawyers ready to take it to court.
Then those same people would complain that the courts should not legislate.
We have similar problems with people who would get into a car and attempt to drive without a license or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Yet somehow we are able to get a handle on cars and on people who should not be driving them.
Perhaps part of the reason is that our constitution does not say "the right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed."
I have to disagree with this. Here in Arizona it's estimated that about a 3rd of the drivers in Maricopa county (largest by population in the state) are uninsured and about a quarter of the drivers are unlicensed. I don't have any current numbers on DUI incidents but it's very high as well, seems that we hear a couple of reports of "wrong way" drivers each week. I would say we have not gotten a handle on it, we just try to live with it.
I really don't know what to tell you about a state like Arizona that simply refuses to do its job.
For god's sake, arrest the bad drivers and do something about the guns.
Hispanics are the majority race in many areas of Arizona.
No way in hell Democrats will try and take away something from a perceived voting bloc.
Are we? I'm not sure the numbers actually support that. I just don't think we hear about it on the news.
That's definitely an issue.
?
What was the question?
It was too late to delete the comment and all I could do was shorten it.
We do?
From the CDC- surprised they don't have something more current than 2016.
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html#:~:text=In%202016%2C%2010%2C497%20people%20died,deaths%20in%20the%20United%20States.&text=Of%20the%201%2C233%20traffic%20deaths,involved%20an%20alcohol%2Dimpaired%20driver .
I would hardly say we have driving under the influence under control.
I would like like to see a long term graph but I cannot find one.
As of 2016 the trends were in the right direction:
Everyone has been drinking like they are on vacation since Covid19 hit us, so I am not surprised the trends are in the wrong direction again. But what would they be if we didn't monitor the roads for drunk drivers?
One inconvenient detail for Democrats is that in states where THC has been legalized highway fatalities (or crashes?) seem be up.
I don't feel like Googling that one.
One thing I am going to complain about that I noticed. The piece of shit that is dead in Texas bought his gun, then another. What stuck out to me was then he goes and buys over three hundred pieces of ammunition.
There is no way in hell someone would need that much at one time.
I think we run in different crowds. I know of several people who when they go to the range will take a thousand rounds with them because they are shooting several different guns. And I know of several people who have several thousand rounds in storage at home. Granted the 5.56 ammo is not cheap. But either is the rifle he had in the school. How the hell did he afford all of that? How was he getting his money?
I only know one guy that hoards. He usually shoots at his own home made range. He lives further out in the country.
I could see a scenario where you just bought the ammo at the range.
Depends on what guns you have also. If you only have one or two guns your need is not as great, but that also doesn't take into account how often you go shooting, etc.
I friend who recently passed had the following types of guns (and ammo for them all). And I am sure I'm missing some as this was just off of one page of the spreadsheet.
8 mm
9 mm
22
25
32-20
38
357
41
44
45 ACP
454
45-70
410 gauge
12 gauge
.223
30-06
30-40 Krag
30 Carbine
308
The guy I know has to have over a hundred.
sorry ender , but when i was into competitive shooting and practicing just about every week , 300 rounds was considered a half days worth of shooting .
there were times i had much more on hand if i were reworking loads for competition to see which loads were best .
AND that was all for 1 single firearm exclusively .
Most people are not into competitive shooting and have no need to be driving around with six hundred rounds.
LOL well i can attest to going through over 1000 rounds just taking the grand kids "plinking " in a single day and there are only 3 of them add me and their mom and dad , and thats 6 people .
Sorry but I see no fun in that. That is shooting 600 times per person, unless it shoots more.
We need to stop using the idea/phrase "nobody needs". It's a completely pointless idea and a counterproductive statement.
Nobody "needs" to be driving around with golf clubs. Nobody "needs" to have Cardi B on the radio. Nobody "needs" a tattoo, or a whiskey, or an orange shirt or baseball cards or any number of the billions of things Americans have.
The whole point of living in a free society is being able to determine for yourself what you want without somebody else telling you "you don't need that".
"Nobody needs *insert the thing you're afraid of here*" is simply a poorly disguised justification for changing the legal behaviors of law abiding citizens because they're too spineless to do anything about insane people.
When I was doing competitive shooting, 1,000 rounds a day, the week prior to competition, was standard. Non-competition weeks "only" got 500 per day for five days of the week. That was for rifle. For pistol, usually 250 per day would be considered standard for non-competitive weeks and up to 400 per day prior to competition.
well you dont have to , what was/is important was and is we did and do .
Most law abiding citizens as you call them do not ride around loaded to the hilt.
Try to discredit it all you want, there is no need to be driving around with several weapons and enough ammo to shoot up a shopping mall.
Does your weapon shoot more than one at a time? Seems to me, even for a kid, shooting 200 times would be a lot.
All weapons shoot one round at a time.
A- You have no clue what they may or may not be riding around with. B- Free societies don't restrict people's rights just because they're doing something most other people don't do.
I don't need to try. It discredits itself.
What if you're headed to the Boy Scout or Girl Scout regional camp out and you're in charge of bringing the ammo for the shooting range? 100 kids, 50 rounds ea... that's 5000 rounds.
What if you've got a guy's weekend out at the ranch and 5 of you will be target shooting for a couple days?
What if you've got a feral hog problem?
Just because you can't think of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and what people "need" is none of your business.
You can try to call it restriction. Makes it sound so nefarious doesn't it...
Contrary to how some people believe, the Heller decision ruled that there can be regulations on weapons.
Actually you are kinda making my point with the boy scout analogy. The kids and fathers are not carrying the ammo themselves....
You could say someone having any type of weapon could be none of my business yet yes, those weapons can be regulated.
You can't seem to understand that the vast majority of responsible legal gun owners aren't planning to shoot up a shopping mall or doing a drive by.
And you can't see that any idea people come up with will be shot down by people on the right. And nothing will be done.
If that is your back door way of asking if i own any full auto capable firearms. which i can both afford and pass the required check and obtain the lics for , i will simply say i have no use for them , but like a certain character said in a movie , not having a use for them doesn't mean i don't know how to use them .
The fact is I have only ever owned 1 firearm that could fire more than one round at a time , and that was an old double barrel shotgun , touching off both barrels at the same time was not exactly something one would want to do all the time . and i am not the asshole i once was like with my kids with my grandkids , i let my kids touch off both barrels , just for the fun of watching their reactions , with the grandkids i have more fun with the muzzle loaders and messing with their minds.
hell even my choice of carry hand gun has changed and can change , use to be a .357 S&W combat masterpiece , went to a full sized GI 1911A1 in .45 , and is now a simple and effective 2 shot derringer chambered for .45 LC and .410 shotshell.
Because it is.
No, just contradicts the lovely Brave New World spin people like to put on it.
Obviously.
If your point is "there are certainly reasons somebody might "need" to buy 1000 rounds of ammunition at one time", then yes, I definitely am.
Define "those weapons". BTW, you started all this with an objection to the amount of ammunition this kid was able to buy. How will you regulate that? What do you do about the guys who make their own? (lots of people do)
Why are we not talking about the fact he threatened to do this on social media and nobody reported it? Why are we not talking about 19 lives that could have been saved by security doors like they have at the schools my kids attended? Why aren't we talking about the thousands of black kids that get shot so often we don't consider it newsworthy?
We are talking about a kid that walked in and bought enough ammo to shoot up a school and then did so.
So excuse me for pointing out the obvious.
The trouble is amount of obvious you miss.
Once had a duckfoot pistol that shot four rounds at a time.
If that made sense I might be offended....
Not hesitating to prove it true, though.
Prove what...That you are being a dick?
Or you are going to deny that he walked in and bought 350 rounds and used them....
That you miss or ignore truckloads of very obvious facts.
Defined as "don't validate your daft ideas", then yeah. Probably so. Not sorry.
Ignoring more stuff, I see.
BTW, if you intend to accuse me, cite me.
In the meantime, maybe you could review some of those questions you chose to ignore.
What the fuck is your problem. Seriously. Take a fucking zanax or something.
Accuse you of what? ignore what?
Have you been drinking.....
If ya'll are gonna play know-it-all, then yous have to get your stories straight. One voice is screaming .22s only - while the other head ignores that .22s are sensibly bought as a brick of 500.
AR15 ammo isn't quite the same as 22LR ammo.
From left to right: 45ACP, 9mm NATO, .22LR, .223, 7.62x39mm
Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal
“The little bullet pays off in wound ballistics.”
And there is this explanation from Quora:
and yet the AR-15 i own , shoots 22 LR as well as the 5.56/.223.
so i have 3 ammo choices to choose from .........
So, you get to arbitrarily decide who has too much ammo in the basement?
I'd like that job.
First, he is a piece of shit
Second, last year I saw 300 rounds at a good price and bought 2. Wish I had bought several more.
How much do you use. How many times do you shoot your gun.
Most people I know that shoot, themselves only shoot a couple of times and stop. I know no one that sits around and shoots hundreds of rounds.
Usually when I go to the range I plan on being there for a few hours. I know a lot of people who will spend a couple of hours shooting. It's all personal preference.
I mostly see people shoot at home. My BIL and Niece have gone to a range and like you said, stay an hour or two. I can see that as they provide targets and a safe environment.
Like I said though, I can see where one get get ammo from the range.
As long as there is concern of a shortage or rising prices I will pick some up when it is cheap. I don't get to shoot like I used to.
So you are just going to buy whenever and let it pile up.....
I have been accused of being a packrat
Ranges can sell ammunition but it’s not a public service - they’re making money at it. They don’t have any special security knowledge that places them above any other retailer - no license is required. I don’t know any shooter who wants to pay inflated prices.
he is gonna fudge his undies if i say how much i have tucked and stored away ready for use , and that not even mentioning , the brass for reloading , or how much powder and lead i have to make more .......
not to mention i make my own black powder so have all the ingredients for that as well , though by law i am limited to 50 pounds at a time , i have over 300 pounds of the ingredients which are not regulated and there is no limit to how much one can have on hand .
needless to say , im not planning on buying anymore ready made ammo unless the price is right for the rest of my life .
hope that doesnt cause a popped blood vessel in some of the geriatric set .
Sounds like you are hoarding bomb making materials. Should be against the law itself.
you have any bleach and ammonia in your house ? if so you have the makings for a chemical weapon of mass destruction in your cleaning supplies closet , doesn't matter what one has , can black powder be used to make bombs yup , but now prove thats what the black powder is to be used for .
how many bags of charcoal equals 100 pounds ? how many bags does one use grilling in one summer?
How is charcoal made? burning wood to a certain point and putting out the fire , i have 3 cords of firewood , so i have the making to make the makings instead of going and buying it .
instead of buying potassium nitrate , know where else it can be gotten ? from chicken shit , i have made no secret i keep chickens ., and they shit , ALOT. Know what else chicken shits good for? fertilizer.
do you only buy TP by the roll or buy it bulk , do you buy things in bulk at all when things are on sale ? get the point now .
point is all 3 ingredients used to make black powder also has other uses by themselves some agricultural , some therapeutic , it is only when all 3 are combined in the correct amount they become the explosive mentioned , and as i said though it is regulated by law how much black powder ( or rifle and pistol powder) one can have on hand without a lic , there is no law that says it cannot be made either. nor are the ingredients regulated , all can be got at your local Walmart or farm supply store .
my point in needling is that people often forget things have multiple uses and applications , how someone decides they use those things is up to and on them , anyone else really has no say in the matter because of their feelers .
As they say Freud said , sometimes a cigar is just a cigar .
Then you would shit bricks seeing my mother's basement; which is a hoarders trove of literally everything. She grew up during the shortages of WWII. She buys everything on sale. I doubt she will live long enough to use all of the detergent, cleaners of all types, and fertilizer. She has me order her more whenever sales pop up online. I might not live long enough to see that stockpile truly end.
Want to be the one that comes and tries to arrest her? You wouldn't just have to get past me. It would be literally everyone in the neighborhood that she has child sat for; taken care of their house while they are on vacation; loaned them whatever they needed w/o ever asking anything in return.
She is really a threat to society. Better watch out! She might spoil your kids or grand kids!
You know there is a difference than buying a bunch of toilet paper than enough 'fertilizer' to last several lifetimes....
Or maybe you are just trying to gloss over that...
Don't forget fertilizer. Must have a brown lawn.
Which can be like getting your soda and popcorn from the movie theater. Expensive.
This is about the best example of why there is so much pushback on restrictions on guns. You don't know Mark in Wyoming. Therefore, all you are considering is what could be done with the material Mark possesses. It doesn't matter who Mark is. You're ready to make what Mark does illegal not because of anything Mark has done or is doing. You're ready to make it illegal because of what Mark could do. And that's the problem. People such as yourself ready to restrict what others can do based on nothing more than your imagination.
Yes, Mark could build a bomb with his black powder. Mark could make a bomb out of material other than black powder. Mark could also intentionally drive his vehicle into a crowd of people. Mark could go into a supermarket and poison the food. Mark could go around setting houses on fire. Mark could poison the city water supply. Mark could do a lot of things to kill people if Mark were that kind of guy.
So, just how many things are you going to make illegal to ensure that Mark doesn't do something to harm you or others?
And I could get hit by a taxicab crossing the street...
or you could catch your house on fire cooking bacon if your not paying attention ...... so whats the answer? outlaw bacon ? or cooking ?
( I know , outlaw bacon ? that's sacrilege )
All these whataboutisms to justify a hobby of firing a weapon designed for mass killiing on weekends for three hours at a time. A weapon optimized to kill rather than injure.
When I plug my electric guitar into my portable recording equipment, I sometimes imagine sounds of applause coming from an imaginary crowd.
What kind of sounds do you imagine coming from your imaginary crowd?
“…to justify a hobby…”
No one needs a bowling ball unless used at the proper venue.
Make a law that certain weapons are only available at a licensed and supervised range and then recreate to your hearts content.
Just a thought as too many families prepare to bury their children lest we forget this Memorial Day.
Again..whataboutisms to justify a hobby of maintaining an arsenal weapons designed for mass murder.
The whataboutisms aren't convincing anybody, not even the people mothing them off.
Anyway, can we get the FBI here to check out some of the explosives that NT members are implying that they are hoarding on their property?
I think there might be a legal obligation to do so.
Just sayin'.
I don’t know of any ranchers or farmers that use bowling balls for varmint control….do you?
Where did you see it?
Please keep us posted on what they find.
It's the latest craze--haven't you heard?
The sheer efficiency of crushing varmints with a bowling ball is simply indisputable. They always die when crushed by a 16 LB. ball!
Is that where they find varmints?
Can't you just imagine ranchers having to drive hundreds of miles to exercise their Constitutional rights?
I guess that would be cool--just so long as we never make anyone wanting to vote have to drive over a mile or two, eh?
I’ve heard of hog sticking but never hog bashing…
Take a look at 6.4.8.
Maybe it's hyperbole. Maybe it's bravado. Maybe it's a troubling but legal stash. Maybe it's normal in the Midwest?
Does everyone in Texas and Wyoming feel a need for a Branch Davidian horde of weapons?
Where in the Midwest?
I missed the part about a horde of weapons. I did read the part about everyday items that can be mixed and used differently than there common use.
Again, please keep us posted on what the FBI finds.
That’s one way to get the cutlet thin enough for Wiener schnitzel.
Nope.
Rather a silly question.
I prefer veal however as I’ve always said, schwein is divine…
I'm fond of pounded meat as well:
If people here are in that habit of bragging about their excess amounts of explosive chemicals it won't be me who informs you of what the FBI finds.
It will be the Daily Beast.
We had (at least) 11 mass shootings this holiday weekend.
Please excuse me for giving the AR15 enthusiasts on NT some stink-eye.
How many were with AR15’s?
Nothing irritates me more than the circular logic that we shouldn't ban AR15s because more people are killed by hand guns. And then of course we need our handguns because who knows when a bad guy with an AR15 will show up?
It's a stupid talking point.
AR15s are accurate; they fire bullets in rapid succession; the bullets do greater harm than most guns. The guns were designed to be efficient killing weapons able to take out multiple people in a short period of time.
No civilian needs one, and we see on an all too regular basis what happens when someone takes one out for a spin to do what it was designed to do: slaughter humans.
I’m surprised that the punctuation mark didn’t alert you that I asked rather than providing talking point.
Doesn’t that depend on barrel length and make?
Perhaps, but it’s hard to beat the stopping power of a 300 Weatherby Magnum, 180 grain at 3240 fps.
i dont worry about things that are imaginary and not there , so that should suffice as an answer.
since i am the only one that has said anything about that , i have to take it that is directed directly at me.
i say good luck . as long as i have less than 50 pounds of actual powder , i can have as much of the ingredients to make it as i want , those are neither restricted nor regulated . they will likely want to see the discussion thread and , after reading it , MAYBE send out an agent to inquire, NOT , , likely they wont because everything i have said is legal to do , The authorities , even the FBI are rather unlikely to go around if something is legally covered ., and they especially are not likely to go around asking questions because someone got their knickers in a knot during an internet pissing match
here is something to think about , people can have the information and knowledge to do or make things , that knowledge can never be removed , and the knowledge of how to , is already out there in the ether of the interwebs and in print . that should make many sleep well at night (SARC)..
I will leave you and the discussion , with this little thought to chew on .
On a different media site someone stated that assault weapons need banned and the FBI and ATF needed to go door to door and seize them all. I did give him a little ration of shit after some research .
The FBI has a total of 35000 employees both special agents and support personnel, lets say agents and support is split in half , agent having the actual authority to enforce the law . so that 17500 field agents and im being generous .
The BATFE (ATF) has a total of 2600 agents in the field .
So this guy wants a force of just over 20 k agents to go door to door looking for banned items across the entire country where they have no idea where they all are ( remember some states don't require registration ), that ATF form 4473 only tells them who initially bought the firearms legally , and as of date private sales in much of the country don't require that form to be filled out and is still also legal. .......i asked him if the name CUSTER meant anything to him , didn't get a response .
i also pointed out that the military is pretty much precluded from doing the door to door shit , , and even if ordered to most would likely refuse and take the court martial and discharge officers and enlisted both , besides officers oaths don't say they will follow the orders of the President their oath is to the constitution only, and that they will uphold the constitution , and enlisted personnel's oaths the constitution comes before the president even though he is CIC .. A lot of the military might just stand down . That is one of the things that the planners who are paid to think and predict such things have nightmares about , and they have history to show them what might happen , because everything i said, happened at the start of the civil war this country had . And this action , has the probability of going in that direction , once things start they can go sideways real fast and it would be out of anyone's control.
OTHER LEO entities ? well that would be much like the military , some would do as ordered and some would walk , thing is there would likely be LESS support for seizing things because most LEO live local , and try to get along with the communities they live in . Chances of them going out to their neighbors for an order they don't support ? i don't give that much of a chance . about as much chance as repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment .
The most memorable problem in my calculus text book was a scenario where a tiger has jumped at you with a specific mass and velocity and you are firing off bullets of a specific mass and velocity and you had to calculate how many rounds you had to fire to make the tiger fall dead in its tracks (from flying the air toward you).
I seem to remember it being something like 3 rounds. Maybe 5?
(I would probably die reaching around for my slide rule.)
What I refuse to excuse is ridiculous assumptions.
There are a lot of those around.
Why do we think we think we had 11 mass shootings this weekend? Who defines that?
Why the stinkeye at AR-15 owners, when AR-15s are not involved in the overwhelming majority of firearm fatalities in this country every year? Why not stinkeye at 9mm or .38 owners instead?
Because they support the market for a weapon that no civilian should own.
Why the stinkeye for pimps and drug dealers?
Because they stink too.
There are legitimate civilian uses for them. Feral hogs being a well-documented example.
Because they're breaking the law. Your local liquor store sells an addictive drug, too. But it's legal, so everybody's OK with it.
People aren't ok with drunk drivers.
People aren't ok with liquor stores and bars selling alcohol to people who are already drunk.
Community Boards regularly reject applications for liquor licenses depending on the location.
And in many places you can't buy nearly 200 proof grain alcohol.
Hmm. Could feral hogs possibly be the reason we need an unregulated "militia" armed to the teeth with military style rifles that wind up killing groups of civilians and children on a regular basis?
Both of which are illegal activities.
Interesting how you think killing feral hogs doesn't slow population growth but you think outlawing AR-15s will slow gun violence.
Outlawing AR15s will definitely slow AR15 gun violence.
(Put two AR15s together in a box and tell me whether they have pups.)
Just like outlawing school shootings has definitely slowed those.
We should consider making schools Gun Free Zones.
Do you think you scored a point with that logic?
(I blame teachers.)
I dunno.
Are you seeing how naive that idea is? If so, then mission accomplished. But I'm not optimistic.
You said this:
Which you seem to think is a slam dunk. What is your point? We pass laws but people still continue to break those laws after we have passed them so we shouldn't bother passing laws?
Robbery is against the law yet people still get robbed - don't waste everyone's time with a law a against robbery!
Financial fraud is a crime yet people still commit financial fraud - don't waste our time with laws against financial fraud!
A law banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons can be passed and it would reduce the availability of assault weapons for sale. Just like any other law has an effect.
Exactly, they conveniently forget how effective our illegal drug bans have been.
i noticed he said "slow " not stop........must know it will never stop.
lets say that *poof* Ars are illegal , there is what ? 5 million or more just estimated to be in circulation? so now they have to contend with consenting , people being willing to give them up, compliance , respecting the law , and co -operation , going along. i dont think thats going to happen . So some agency shows up to collect these things ,gee i sold that in a private sale X years ago , or i had a terrible accident out in the boat , or you can make up whatever story you think will be used , thing is , its not for the accused to prove what happened its for the accuser to prove their case . thats not even talking about the black market that will be created , both from inside and outside the country . And that black market , already exists .
The current opioid crisis was delivered to us by the pharmaceutical industry.
part of it .
and those companies are regulated by who? the government , i trust gas station sushi in the middle of the desert more than i trust the government to get things right .
Big pharma employs retired government regulators.
still does not negate what i said , nor whom or what i trust more .
If only some good ol' boys with their AR15s shot up Purdue Pharma before this opioid thing got out of hand.
The whole point of a place like this is to interact with people who think differently than you do, so don't presume their thought processes will follow your own.
I don't really do "slam dunks".
That's only a small part of the point.
Your idea here is "since outlawing the thing we don't want to happen isn't working, we'll outlaw what we're told are the favorite tools used to do it".
But it's a lazy non-solution. There are a number of factors involved, of which firearm access is only one, and gun restrictions in the US have a poor history of effectiveness anyway. You could arguably make the same or better case to outlaw "violent video games". (which isn't going to work either) We're going to need a comprehensive, multi-faceted, plan that addresses what the data tells us is actually happening.
BTW, only 25% of mass shooters use "assault rifles". 77% use handguns.
Only 7.6% of shootings happen in K-12 schools, but studies show t hey get a disproportionate amount of media coverage.
Great example. We outlaw financial fraud. We don't outlaw the computers used to perpetrate it.
What we do instead is set a number of rules in place to make it easier to spot ahead of time and therefore prevent. We then mandate training for tens of thousands of financial professionals, teaching them all the red flags to observe, and requiring them to report any of those red flags they notice.
We already have rules in place that require anyone who works with kids to report suspected child abuse. Adding "potential school shooter reporting" is not a massive extension of that.
There are several common characteristics shared by most K-12 school shooters:
So we have a great start of a list of shit to look for, and we already have an army of 3.5 million teachers we can train.
Now, if we want to talk about raising the minimum age or requiring special licensing for certain types of guns as part of a broad package that includes increased monitoring, red flag laws, improving campus security, and several other ideas, OK. But thinking that we get anywhere by just outlawing a certain type of gun is just incredibly naive.
You left out something from your list.
100% of them use guns.
It’s easy to overlook the bullets, but the guns need both, bullets and someone to load them, point them and pull the trigger.
Actually, I was less than precise in 6.4.64, I should have wrote cartridges of course. Bullets without the rest of the cartridge do nothing.
That's a good point. Some types of bullets should be banned.
But when it comes to banning maybe we would say, "ammunition."
You had asked a while back how I would rewrite the second ammendment.
I just stumbled on this attempt by John Paul Stevens:
He justifies it in terms of original intent.
Thanks. Since we don’t really have state militias, why not just eliminate the amendment entirely?
Maybe, please keep us informed as you work it.
depending on the state , its constitution and statutes of the state , one may have provisions on paper to have and what constitutes a "Militia " also called a state guard , on paper seperate and not part of the national guard most think is the militia now .
Wyoming is one such state , and one has to actually look at what is in the statutes and how it would work .
Simple way to get around adding those 5 words is for the state to mandate that people are in the state guard . even though they are not members of the national guard , which the statute that exists does BTW.
Very few nations in the world have constitutional rights to gun ownership. So we would probably be completely fine if we simply got rid of the second amendment.
Justice Stevens is seeking to clarify the original intent. I think he's made a pretty good case for how to fix the second amendment with just a few additional words.
Are you sure we no longer have state militias? How about the National Guard?
There seems to be a straight line from our colonial militias to the current national guard.
and
And apparently Texas has an actual official state militia:
Apparently, New York State also has an official state militia too:
I really had no idea that official state militias were still a thing. If Texas has one and New York State has one, I'm guessing most of the other states have them too.
If I only bought what I needed instead of what I want, i would not have had to work very hard or invested.
Chances of a rewrite of the 2nd ?
I give its likelihood of happening as me dating and marrying a supermodel , not imposable but highly improbable.
The constitution allows for 2 ways to change and amend the document , one being the legislative method where congress drafts something and votes on it , but unlike the laws they write , it does not simply need a presidents signature , it must pass ratification of the states , 3/4ths to be exact , and with 50 states currently , the number needed for ratification is 38, all it takes to kibosch any proposed amendment is for 13 states to not ratify or accept it .
This method of amending is the one that has been used the most and for a reason most do not think about .
Which brings me to the OTHER method of change , the convention of states , or constitutional convention , its been threatened over the years but only used once in the entire lifetime of the governmental document , and that was when the current constitution and the first 10 amendments were adopted way back when .
Now here is where i will drift off into opinion , the reason the convention method has not been used is once called , the legislature has no way of controlling the input , nor even a say in what the finished product would be . and those with power/control are generally loath to risk losing power/control they already think they have . So they will make damn sure they present a legislative version , before they are forced to suffer a convention that could feasibly strip them of power/control , just the way it is .
Another reason i think the convention method has only been used that 1 time is once a convention is called , NOTHING is off the table , that was proven the first time around ,the convention was called to supposedly fix the first governing document that some said was too weak , well that first governing document , the articles of confederation , became a footnote in history and some have never even heard of it now . what was suppose to be fixed got shitcanned and a whole different document written in its place .
basically it comes down to who has the control and who doesnt want to lose control .
And on a side note , those first 10 amendments we call the bill of rights ? there were originally 12 amendments proposed , only 10 made it out of convention to be presented to the states to ratify , and the reason there were amendments was to get the needed states to ratify the new governing document .
!
Well, we can always fall back on ''thoughts and prayers''.
Most of the people who offer thoughts and prayers don't strike me as the praying type.
REWRITE the Second Amendment? Who even knows how to WRITE any more? How about RETYPE the Second Amendment?
I think thats one of the things in tha back of peoples minds , if they attempt to do it through convention , the whole constitution is up for grabs and can be thrown out and a new governing document can be written , thats what happened during the last and only constitutional convention that was held to fix the "problems" with the Articles of Confederation , the first governing document .
if they try and change things through the legislative method of amendment , they run into needing 3/4th of the state to agree to the change , which has always been the sticking point , unless that bar is met , the origional amendment stays the same with no changes , I CAN think of 13 states that would not ratify because of what some want . and thats all it would take to defeat any amendment .
either way , they would still need the 3/4 ths of the states to ratify any change .
Are computers really assault typewriters?
LOL