We need to have a serious national debate about the 2nd Amendment

[Hugabear]

It's been awhile since I've posted on here, but I see that nothing has changed since I've been gone. It's still just as easy as it always has been for people to get guns and go on mass shooting sprees.

It's time that we had a serious discussion on the 2nd Amendment, about either repealing the damned thing or at least amending it, so that Congress and local governments can finally start passing some meaningful gun control. Things have changed quite a bit in the 238 years since the US was founded. There is absolutely on reason whatsoever for anyone to be carrying around assault rifles in public. In an age where the government is armed with tanks, fighter jets, drones, etc that can wipe out an area before you even see them, the notion that Billy Bob and Hank are going to fight off a "oppressive tyranny" with their small-arms is laughable at best.

Nobody is talking about an outright national ban on guns. But if some urban areas want to ban guns within their city limits, they should be able to do so. If we want to ban assault rifles and other guns that are only designed to kill large amounts of people, that should be on the table.

[Indydem]

1. Good luck with that.

The process to amend the constitution is listed in Article V.

The likelihood of amending the constitution to remove one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is zero.

[Hugabear]

2. We don't need to remove the 2nd Amendment. Just amend it.

And I understand that it won't be an easy process. It's not going to happen overnight, especially with the NRA and gun-humpers screaming bloody murder anytime anyone even suggests any time of gun control legislation.

But the national discussion needs to start. People are getting fed up of all these mass shootings. It's getting to the point where it's not even surprising to hear about someone going on a shooting rampage, and these can happen anywhere at anytime. People should have a right to feel secure and safe, and not have to worry if some deranged idiot with an arsenal of guns is going to go on a shooting spree around them.

[stranger81]

114. We don't even need to amend it. We just need a SCOTUS that will interpret it

properly, within the boundaries of its literal language, and not arbitrarily expand it so it's essentially an unlimited positive right. The 2nd Amendment itself is not the problem -- it's our modern Supreme Court's outrageous expansion of its original intent (yikes, I said that!!) that has been a disaster for our country and our culture.

[davidn3600]

148. It goes beyond the supreme court

The vast majority of the population feels the second amendment is an individual right.

So even if you get a favorable Supreme Court decision, enforcing gun control laws on a national level is going to be incredibly problematic.

Keep in mind, the Supreme Court cannot make law, nor can they enforce law. So even if you get a favorable decision, you got another fight to get congress and legislators to pass laws. Then you have to find ways to effectively enforce it. If you have a few urban centers banning all guns but the conservative areas around them refuse to do it....it's basically a waste of time.

[badtoworse]

152. That is already happening in upstate NY. Upstate LEO's have refused to enforce NY's SAFE Act.

[hack89]

155. The 2A is not stopping gun control

It has never stopped an AWB, gun registration or limits on types of ammunition/magazines. According to the Supreme Court, the only right protected by the Constitution is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That is it. Even Scalia says that guns can be strictly regulated.

[hack89]

4. The 2A is not stopping gun control

it has never stopped an AWB, gun registration or limits on types of ammunition/magazines. According to the Supreme Court, the only right protected by the Constitution is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That is it. Even Scalia says that guns can be strictly regulated.

[hollowdweller]

112. True it's not the Second Amendment it's not having enough votes.

Manchin Toomey didn't pass and it was a very weak increase in background checks and now people here are talking about tossing Manchin out for even doing that.

The Assault weapons ban expired and there was not the votes to renew it.

Gun control passed in Colorado and several who voted for it were recalled.

It is obvious that there are more people who will toss a politician from office for passing gun control, no matter how benign than those who will toss a rep for not voting for gun control.

I believe continued shootings and overreach and in your face actions by more extreme gun rights groups will eventually sour the support guns have. But until then an honest discussion would best start how to best convince more people gun control is needed rather than pie in the sky repeal of 2nd Amendment.

[MineralMan]

5. Step 1: Elect a huge majority of Democrats to Congress.

Without completing that step, there's no point in discussing this further. Amending the Constitution is required to do what you suggest, and that's not even a possibility with the current makeup of Congress, nor with the current makeup of state legislatures. Unless we can put an overwhelming majority of Democrats in office, there's not a prayer of changing how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted in this country.

We have only one choice, and that is:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[hollowdweller]

113. Any dem majority large enough to pass gun control

Will have dems who are from rural areas who will not vote for gun control.

[MineralMan]

119. So, you don't think electing large Democratic

majorities in Congress is a good idea, then? Really?

[hollowdweller]

141. Think it's a great idea.

[beevul]

6. Be honest. You don't want debate or discussion.

You want a monologue.

[Hugabear]

7. Seems like you don't want a debate or discussion either

You want to keep status quo, where every other week we get to hear about somebody going on a shooting spree.

See how that works? You make a blanket statement about me, I make one about you.

How about if we all discuss this rationally. If a city wants to enact a complete ban on guns, they should be able to do so. What works in rural areas doesn't necessarily work in urban areas. We should allow local communities to decide for themselves how much gun control they want.

[Lee-Lee]

8. Would you be ok with that standard for other rights?

If a city wants to enact a complete ban on dangerous speech, they should be able to do so. What works in rural areas doesn't necessarily work in urban areas. We should allow local communities to decide for themselves how much free speech they want.

[Hugabear]

22. Last I checked, nobody ever died from a drive-by speech

And there are already restrictions on speech, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening someone's life.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. It's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if the theater has a fire.

Nor is it illegal to threaten someone if you are advising them you will use deadly force if they persist in a crime wherein self-defense is justified.

In other words, you can still say those things, there is no prohibition on uttering or repetition limitations. The only thing the law takes into account is whether or not the speech was justified by the circumstances. If gun control advocates showed an equal measure of discernment they would make more progress.

[daleanime]

58. And so clearly we have no problem.....

with gun violence in this nation at all.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. That makes no sense.

"You can't yell, 'Fire!'"

"Actually, you can."

"So, clearly we have no gun problem."

Clear as mud.

[daleanime]

94. Then at least we feel the same about that...

then the question is....who doing their best to muddy the waters up?

But I take it slowly for you, yes or no.....do we have a problem with gun violence in this nation?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. No.

[daleanime]

97. 30 people a day dead last year.....

that's not a problem?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. If I understand your premise correctly --

Anything that leads to an untimely death of ~30 people a day is a problem.

[daleanime]

101. but not for you....

so now the waters are muddied by any cause of 'untimely death'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is people dying before reaching a natural death.

I would assume the unnatural/untimely death itself is the issue, regardless of cause.

[daleanime]

117. And muddier still....

My first question to you concerned gun violence in the US. When faced with your bold statement that there isn't a problem with that I asked a further question about gun violence. So gun violence remains the question.

But please do grab another handful of mud.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. You assert gun violence is a problem.

Problem has many qualities: quantity, severity, frequency but to name a few. Many things in life are a "problem," some are more problematic than others. Some problems recede while others grow. Some things presented as problems really aren't, i.e. the Jewish problem.

Define "problem."

[daleanime]

138. And now it so muddy...

that we're walking on it.


If you can't agree that the violent end of 30 lives a day is a 'problem', there's no way discussion goes forward.



Thanks for pushing me further left on this issue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. Lots of things kill 30 -- or more -- people a day.

Apparently they aren't a problem for you. If you refuse to define what constitutes a problem and then ignore things that kill much more than 30 people a day it has every appearance that you don't really care about problems so much as you do your personal phobias.

[daleanime]

150. Save it for some one else, but let me tell you one thing....

that I fairly sure you'll duck, dodge and/or deliberately 'mis-understand'.

The fact that the minority on this issue is unwilling to have an honest discussion about how to move forward is going to come back to haunt them.

Now have a good nite.

[Hugabear]

139. Would you argue that gun violence is not a problem?

Please, do enlighten us

[Nuclear Unicorn]

143. Define "problem."

[Duckhunter935]

151. Would you argue that alchohol and drug abuse is not a problem?

Please, do enlighten us alcohol

[beevul]

89. And you'd be fine with localities that want none?

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Somehow I doubt it.

"Seems like you don't want a debate or discussion either"

That "debate or discussion" has been had time and time again, in CA.

See:

Waiting period in CA

Universal background checks in CA

Assault weapon ban in CA

Magazine capacity limits in CA

Those things I've listed above were sold to the general public based on what they were purported to do. People like me told people like you during those "discussions" that they wouldn't do the things they were purported to do, and we were mocked, insulted, shunned, and ostracized for it, hereabouts and elsewhere.

And now you want to have another discussion.

I think before you and others like you go blaming the nra, blaming and mocking gun rights supporters, there are things that need to be done first:


You and people like you shoulder equally as much of the blame as you want to attribute to the nra and gun rights supporters like me and others. CA has YOUR chosen gun control schemes, practically an anti-gun wish list:

Assault weapon ban (which we continue to tell people like you, is useless)


universal background checks (which undisputedly did not prevent the CA shooting)


waiting periods (which undisputedly did not prevent the CA shooting)


registration (which undisputedly did not prevent the CA shooting)


Magazine capacity laws


They failed. That's not my fault, and that's not the fault of the nra.

So acknowledgement that those gun control schemes are not anywhere near as effective as we were told when they were passed, would be a start.

Why should we have any discussion with you about this, if our rights re:firearms are not going to be a part of it?

That sort of discussion, is by definition, not a discussion, but a monologue.

[Duckhunter935]

116. you forgot magazine capacity

all of the magazines the murderer had were California compliant "low" capacity magazines.

Good post

[beevul]

120. Right you are. Edited to add them too.

Thank you.

[Duckhunter935]

122. no problem

[badtoworse]

9. The 2nd Amendment isn't going away anytime soon. You need to accept that.

[stone space]

12. Why? Where does this need to accept it come from? Why is it either desirable or necessary? (nt)

[badtoworse]

18. It's political reality.

You need 3/4 of the states (38) of the states to approve a constitutional amendment. I'd be surprised if even 10 states approved an amendment to change or repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I'll give you California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland (maybe) and Wisconsin (again, maybe). You're 29 states short and I don't think it would even be close in any of the other states.

No, you don't have to accept what you cannot change, but not doing so will make you're life very frustrating.

[stone space]

21. Did you make the same arguement against working to pass an ERA?

I'll bet you were a real joy to be around in those days.

I remember when we were told back in the 1970s that political reality meant that gays would never be allowed to marry in our lifetimes, and that we should just shut our damn mouths about that, too.

I never have understood the purpose and reasoning behind attempting to discourage attempts and struggle for change.

[badtoworse]

27. The ERA is a great example of how hard it is to amend the constitution

That's why I'm saying the 2nd Amendment isn't going away. I support the 2nd Amendment just the way it is.

I believe the problem with mass shooting is cultural. If our culture and media, in particular, didn't glorify violence so much and value human life so little, we might not have the problems we're having today. We have an entire generation that's grown up seeing violence as the answer to everything. Some people aren't bright enough to differentiate fantasy from reality. If you want to effect change that might actually accomplish something, why not focus on that?

[stone space]

31. Did you make the same arguement against working to pass an ERA?

The ERA is a great example of how hard it is to amend the constitution

[badtoworse]

32. I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

[stone space]

52. The arguement was made. I heard it many times. I tried not to let it discourage me.

Same as with those who argued back in the 1970s that gays would never be allowed to marry.

Those folks seed so sure of themselves back then, and a lot of folks bought the argument, but today marriage equality is the law of the land here in Iowa.

Generally, I don't see attempting to discourage people from struggling for change to be a particularly positive or productive use on one's time.

If successful, you've only encouraged people to drop out and become apathetic. If unsuccessful, you've wasted valuable time of your own that could be better put to use in more positive and productive pursuits.

[Hugabear]

53. Other countries have just as violent - if not more violent - culture

Violence is featured just as much - sometimes even more so - in other countries, but because they don't have the same easy access to guns, you don't hear about mass shootings there.

[badtoworse]

57. All the more reason to address the glorification of violence in our culture...

...and to instill respect fore human life in our kids.

Semiautomatic handguns have been around and available for more than 100 years. Why is it only in the last 10 years or so that mass shootings have become so much more common? Suggests to me that guns aren't the problem

[hollowdweller]

115. That's because we have more easy access to guns here.

Gun rights are hugely popular and we mostly continually expand gun rights here. The only way to limit access to guns is from the voters up.

[Jenoch]

72. Wisconsin was one of the last states to pass CCW legislation,

but don't let that make you think it is not a pro-RKBA state. There are 600,000 deer hunters in Wisconsin.

[badtoworse]

75. That is good to hear.

[YarnAddict]

80. Not Wisconsin

or any other state that has a big hunting tradition.

[badtoworse]

82. That's good, but there are exceptions

NY has a lot of hunters but unfortunately, the gun grabbers in NYC outvote them.

[YarnAddict]

84. True, but

it still isn't anything that's going to keep me up at night. This will never happen.

[badtoworse]

85. I don't lose sleep either.

[CTyankee]

87. SCOTUS can do this. And here's how: we get another Dem in the WH in 2016 for 8 years.

In that space of time, we have vacancies to the high court. A Dem president appoints pro-gun regulation justices, you know, like Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagen. Remember them? They all have been pretty much pro-gun regulation. More of them, fewer of those who agree with you, and voila.

SCOTUS can rule on this without the need for a constitutional amendment. Remember Brown? Remember Roe? Someday it will be Remember Heller...

[beevul]

91. Who is it that you think is going to take a gun rights case...

Who is it that you think is going to take a gun rights case to a USSC known to be hostile to gun rights?

[CTyankee]

93. But they won't know, because the justices will be new...

and the next President will choose very carefully...IIRC, weren't Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagin approved by the Senate? Oh, and how did they vote in Heller...

Love your cynicism, tho...

[beevul]

103. Right. Justices, like other politicians...

Right. Justices, like other politicians, have no history to examine.

[CTyankee]

109. Well, there you are. This is what you have gotten. A Dem presidential candidate who

agreed with the platform statement about guns and then nominated justices who vote against what you say you like, such as in Heller. So you have a choice. Vote Democratic in 2016 and take your chances or not.

[YarnAddict]

137. IF--and it's a HUGE if

your plan actually comes to fruition, the next Congressional election will completely flip both Houses to the Republicans, and two years after that you can kiss the presidency good-bye as well. This will bring the righties out of the woodwork like nothing else you can imagine! The fearmongering will be incredible--"what's on the table next? The first amendment? Freedom of religion? Freedom of the press?"

Furthermore, you overestimate the proportion of the American public who wants to radically change the 2nd Amendment. While most people want "sensible" gun legislation (and some would argue that we already have that) you won't find many people outside of DU who want to completely scrap it.

[CTyankee]

145. you underestimate the Americanpublic. I think they have seen what the gun lobby wants and what

it has brought and they are fed up. Geez, how many more gun murders do you think we can take?

If this is your estimation of what the American people want, your vision of this country is even more distopic than I thought...we are a mess compared to other advanced nations on the issue of guns...

[YarnAddict]

146. If the voting public actually wanted

that it would have happened long ago.

[CTyankee]

147. I think we all know why, don't we...the NRA has locked up our Congress...

hence my ideas about getting a President who appoints justices to the SC and other federal courts like Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagen. If you think that is wrong, then maybe you want another kind of president in the White House...

[forthemiddle]

134. Madison, maybe, but never Wisconsin.

Our RKBA in the State Constitution is stronger, than the 2nd Amendment is. At at this time all three houses are Republican controlled.
We also have a very rural population that have always had guns in their household and that ain't changing anytime soon.

[badtoworse]

144. I'm happy to be corrected

[stone space]

10. I agree. It's time to repeal it.

[Logical]

26. 2/3 of states? Get real! nt

[badtoworse]

29. You need 3/4 of the states to approve an amendment

[oldhippie]

11. So what is stopping you? ...

Nobody is talking about an outright national ban on guns.

Uh, yes, some people are. Right here.

But if some urban areas want to ban guns within their city limits, they should be able to do so.

So, ignore the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution? Urban dwellers have different rights than rural dwellers? Suppose some city somewhere wants to bring back school segregation?

Don't bother responding, because I am not going to debate. But have at it. I would also like to see the national debate.

[stone space]

13. Guns don't have rights. People do. Like the right not to be shot. (nt)

[oldhippie]

15. So you would be OK with ....

people in urban areas having different rights than those in rural areas?

Nobody said anything about guns having rights. Why did you?

(I don't see the right not to be shot enumerated in the Constitution, by the way.)

[stone space]

17. I don't even know what you mean by "different rights".

Why are you being so vague?

What rights are we talking about here?

The so-called "right" to an private arsenal?

That's not a right. That's a wrong.

[Lee-Lee]

20. How about a right to self defense

The right to protect yourself from others who mean you harm is something to not be taken away lightly.

Denying people effective means to do it, or placing unreasonable hurdles in front of it, is the same as removing it.

And while you may not like that there is a right to poses a firearm for purposes of self defense, there is and it isn't going away.

[stone space]

25. Communities have a right to self-defense against guns, but the gundamentalist...

...interpretation of the 2nd Commandment interferes against such reasonable self-defense measures.

[oldhippie]

42. It doesn't look like you are capable of following a thought .....

... so bye. I'm going to go work out now.

[Hugabear]

23. People already have different rights depending on where they live

For example, people living in rural areas might be allowed to own livestock, but not within urban areas.

If you don't want to live in an area that bans firearms, then don't live in an area that bans firearms. There would still be plenty of areas in the United States where you could own firearms.

[badtoworse]

28. The short answer is no. Civil rights don't work that way.

[stone space]

35. Guns do not have civil rights. (nt)

[badtoworse]

40. So what? The Bill of Rights protects the people by denying certain powers to the government.

Guns can't speak or own property either. Your statement is ridiculous.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. Neither do printing presses.

[Hugabear]

36. Oh horseshit.

You know what else used to be a civil right? Slavery. Yep. It was such a civil right, that they didn't even need to put it in the Bill of Rights, they made damned sure it was included in the original document.

Times change. People change. Attitudes change.

Being able to vote is a civil right. Being able to marry your partner is a civil right. Having an AK-47 is not a fucking civil right.

[badtoworse]

46. Slavery was eliminated by a constitutional amendment

If you think the 2nd Amendment can be changed or repealed, then have at it.

[Hugabear]

55. That's exactly the point of my OP

And I also don't expect it to happen overnight. But eventually, people WILL get fed up of mass shootings happening with regularity.

Eventually, we WILL be able to have a super-majority in Congress or the state legislatures.

[badtoworse]

63. It would only take 13 states to block an amendment.

Which of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada, Montana or Florida do you think you can flip?

If you want to change the constitution, I suggest you stop posting on DU and get to work.

[Jenoch]

73. You can add Minnesota and Wisconsin to that list of states.

[badtoworse]

74. I'm sure there are many more

The ones I named were the first 13 that came to mind.

[Jenoch]

78. The idea of pushing for a change

to the 2nd Amendment is political suicide for Democrats in too many states for there to be any possibility of this being introduced in congress, let alone getting a vote.

[YarnAddict]

83. Yup. You betcha.

ANY Democrat who runs on a platform of repealing the Second Amendment will go down in flames. It would end up being a worse trouncing than McGovern, Carter, or Mondale.

[oldhippie]

47. So go ahead and start your national debate ...

... and get it changed. I don't think talking about it here is going to get you very far in the rest of the country.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. Slavery wasn't a civil right, it was a legal license. Slavery was a violation of civil rights.

If rights are whatever some piece of paper says then every right becomes paper thin. Rights are inherent and transcend a given person, time and place. Rights do not exist because a piece of paper says they do, rights exist in spite of whatever law may be written.

[Hugabear]

56. Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution

So much so that it took a Constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

Rights are inherent and transcend a given person, time and place.

Many other countries don't seem to thing that having a gun is an inherit right.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. "Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution"

So are postal roads, weights and measures and assuming national debt but those aren't rights, merely a functions.

[Hugabear]

64. I think the former states of the Confederacy would beg to differ with that

And the notion of ending slavery was probably about as popular back then as the notion of getting rid of guns is today.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. It doesn't matter what they think.

They feared the economic devastation it would cause their society (they chose poorly) and they feared a violent backlash (because they chose poorly) but their opinion didn't make it a constitution or human right.

They also rebelled against the right of self-governance and representative government because they seceded after Lincoln was elected knowing full well he would -- via constitutional means -- advance the cause of abolition. Yes, they wanted to maintain slavery but they were not fighting for a right found either in nature or the constitution.

[hack89]

34. So if a city wanted to ban abortion

They should have that power? After all, pro - choice people can simply move.

[oldhippie]

37. And notice none of them will answer the question

about having segregated schools. If Alabama decides to re-segregate schools, well, people that don't agree can move somewhere else.

[Hugabear]

43. Figures that gun-humpers would bring up non-sequitur examples

Being able to own a gun is a far cry from telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body, or denying access to someone because of the color of their skin.

Figures that you gun-humpers are so damned in love with your precious guns that you can't understand that.

[oldhippie]

49. And with that ...

.. I'm outa here.

[badtoworse]

71. So who gets to decide which civil rights can be taken away and which can't?

The bitch about civil rights is that they're not granted to you. They're thing's the government does not have the power to take away.

[hack89]

76. So the states can ignore PARTS of the Bill of Rights but not others?

And you get to decide which ones they have to obey? Ok

[FrodosPet]

125. I want to marry my gun

It is my joy, my sunshine, my reason to rise in the morning.

I bring it flowers and candy, and sing it sweet songs of rainbows and gunpowder.

But I think it is stepping out on me. I really hope my gun does not leave. I cannot and will not ever let another man fire it!

(Note for the humor impaired - I not only am not in love with a gun, I don't even own one)

[kelly1mm]

128. You want to have a national debate yet call people 'gun-humpers'? You may wish

to review how to make friends and influence people if you really want to have a national debate which leads to a national consensus on the issue.

Hint: Calling people names is NOT the way to do it.

[oldhippie]

133. He really isn't going to do anything ...

... other than rant on DU, where he is tolerated.

[oldhippie]

39. There is no right to own livestock .....

So how about answering my question. Is it OK if some cities feel they should bring back segregated schools?

[Hugabear]

59. No, because that would be denying someone based on skin color

Only a gun-humper would equate being able to have an assault rifle with denying someone access to education because of the color of their skin

[YarnAddict]

86. The point is

that they are all Constitutional rights. Gun ownership is a right bestowed by the Constitution that some people take very sseriously. And if think you can be the final arbiter of which Constitutional rights can be infringed and which are sacrosanct, I think reality is probably going to slap you upside the head one of these fine days.

[oldhippie]

90. So much for understanding law and civil rights

I rest my case.

[dilby]

14. So you think the only reason people arm themselves is to protect themselves from the Government?

I have a feeling that there are multitudes of reasons on why people arm themselves, my girlfriend carries because she was raped twice and the last guy stabbed her 17 times. I don't carry but I understand why she does and I am not going to tell her to suck it up so I feel safer.

[Lee-Lee]

16. Thank you for getting it. nt

[Hugabear]

24. There are other methods for self-defense

Such as mace, pepper spray, stun guns, tasers, etc. Also, studies have repeatedly shown that people who carry handguns or keep them in their homes are much more likely to have those guns used against them.

[dilby]

30. Her gun has never been used against her.

But maybe you would like to tell her why she is over reacting on her need to feel safe, since you have been raped how many times and stabbed how many times?

[Hugabear]

38. I'm pointing out what many studies have shown

Fact of the matter is that if you have a gun, it is more likely to be used against you.

[dilby]

41. The studies are pointless.

They are basically saying anything in your possession, mace, stun gun, tazer can be taken from you and used on you so you are better off letting a guy rape you and hope he does not kill you when he is done.

[Lee-Lee]

50. Actually pretty much all those studies have deep flaws

The oldest still gets quoted often stating a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against you was a mess, but people keep trying to base policy on bad science.

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. Holodecks is clearly the answer.

[aikoaiko]

44. Since you've set the bar at repeal or amend -- then no.

If you're not talking about an outright national ban on guns, then there is no reason to repeal or amend the 2nd.

[Aristus]

51. Good luck with that.

The fanaticism with which 2nd Amendment crazies defend their gun-'rights' borders on mass psychosis. No amount of serious discussion is going to change what are laughingly known as their minds. If any of them end up reaping what they sow, and have family members fall victim to a gun-crazed maniac, likely their only reaction will be: "Boy, that piece what took out m'wife sure was a beauty!"

[Sassysdad]

67. Really....

"The fanaticism with which 2nd Amendment crazies defend their gun-'rights' borders on mass psychosis"
My 1st question would be to ask where you earned your degree in psychiatric sciences that give you the right to diagnose anyone?

I had a family member..BIL, take his own life with a handgun(Ruger Single Six) just a few yrs ago. If there had been a total repeal of the 2nd and confiscation, he wouldn't have turned that in.
A family full of Democratic voters in NYS..not one screamed to repeal or amend ANY of the BoR's much less the 2nd....we did question chantix affects for a bit but he wasn't doing it as a secession aid we found out.

He snapped...he pulled the trigger, he had a pocket full of lortabs in case he was stopped with his pistol.. he was going to OD.
Crap happens all the friggin' time...you all of the repeal mindset aren't going to make it happen by saying that those of us that support ALL of the BoR's...every one of them....suffer from "mass psychosis".

[Aristus]

69. Simply wanting the guns is a pretty good indicator.

Don't need advanced degrees to see crazy a thousand miles away...

[Sassysdad]

81. Ding ding ding...

EXACTLY as I suspected. With absolutely ZERO evidence you are able to diagnose "crazy"....with a basket weaving degree....that's what would be required to believe any faction has the ability to amend the 2nd...hell we couldn't get close with the ERA....I was there as a student in support in the '70s.

Aristus..you know what I call "crazy"....your couch diagnosis of millions of people...left and right, that support the value of the 2nd while supporting commonsense points regulation (short of stealing property), and that have harmed NO ONE.

[IronGate]

124. Don't need advanced degrees to see crazy a thousand miles away...

Carnac, is that you?

[Demo_Chris]

65. I disagree. The "debate" has happened. The second might be the only amendment...

We still somewhat follow, but that's no excuse to get rid of it. Perhaps the opposite.

[treestar]

68. If not incorporated by the 14th Amendment

A state could try a gun ban.

[badtoworse]

70. I thought McDonald did that.

[hack89]

77. The 2A has been incorporated. Nt

[YarnAddict]

79. There are cities that do that.

Chicago for one. Look how well that has worked. Furthermore, Virginia Tech was a "gun-free zone." Didn't stop that shooter from offing 30+ people. Seems like the places with the most restrictive gun laws have gun violence at least as bad as anywhere else.

In other words, Gun. Control. Doesn't. Work.

[Rex]

88. Good luck with that, gun nuts would rather us all die than give up their first love. nt.

nt.

[Sassysdad]

92. Wow..

..just wow. My late wife was my 1st love. My family is next, then my dog, then my boat....my firearms aren't "love"ed....they are tools like my Craftsman ratchets and screw drivers or Campbell Hausfeld air compressor and those attachments.

I don't want anyone to die because of my 1st love..my wife..or her firearms that are also tools..

Hyperbole is not a way to make a compelling argument.

[Union Scribe]

96. We can't even get universal background checks.

Shit, we couldn't even get a watered-down-to-absurdity background check bill through. The 2nd Amendment didn't stop that effort, it was hard-headed repubs who think giving an inch to common sense is too far.

[Jenoch]

102. Don't forget about Harry Reid's role.

[Union Scribe]

106. True.

It seems like very few in government on either side wanted to tackle this, and that was fresh off Newtown.

[Jenoch]

111. I believe a UBC law had a good chance of passing last year

if there had not been a new AWB included in the bill. The interesting thing is that the guns used at Newtown and most of the other high-profile mass shooting incidents were legally purchased using background checks on the buyers.

[Lee-Lee]

110. What stopped that bill was it was very poorly written and thought out

You write a bill that allows private individuals access to NICS and then require they use it for all private transfers, and protect privacy doing it, and that bill will get through and you will have UBC.

The Toomey-Manchin bill was very poorly thought out and full of problems.

Make it a simple, straightfoward bill that opens NICS up to private sellers. Make it as easy as a smartphone app- it is 2014, there is no excuse for keeping it a system with 1980's tech and only allowing dealers to use it. Make sure privacy of gun owners is protected. Do that and you can get a bill through.

[Crunchy Frog]

98. Another few gun massacres

and you'll be lynched for even making such a suggestion here on a progressive message board.

[mwrguy]

100. The next time we have the senate we need to pack the courts

Overturn Heller and go back to a sane interpretation of the 2nd.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. What if we can only vote for white people?

[mwrguy]

108. Did someone threaten your precious white privilege?

You seem obsessed with following me around bleating about it.

[Sassysdad]

123. Huh....

we have the Senate.
Will you support the R's packing the courts when they get it back? They will at some point get it back..you cool with them packing the courts?

[mwrguy]

126. I mean our 60 seat majority.

The courts are a tool we can use for good. Rethugs will use any tool for evil, no matter what we do.

[Sassysdad]

140. Leader Reid..

took out the 60 vote threshold...he set up a simple majority for appointment to courts...broke the rules to change the rules and I fear when the R's get back in charge...we are frigged.

[Jenoch]

107. I can think of two interested parties who would welcome

"a serious national debate about the second Amendment".

The NRA, gun manufacturers/dealers and the ammunition manufacturers/dealers.

[Dwayne Hicks]

118. What laws would have prevented this?

California is already strict and he passed every background check required. The problem lies with the police and the parents as well as our mental healthcare in this country. I'm sorry but more gun control is not the answer.

[CTyankee]

121. well, ok, let's just stop trying. NO CAN DO...

yeah, we won WW2, cured polio, put a man on the moon, but NO CAN DO this.

got it. My WW2 era parents would have a word with you...

[Dwayne Hicks]

127. Yes that is the reality

The 2A is not going anywhere nor should it. Instead of appealing to emotion and passing feel good gun control that does nothing to deter crime we need to address the route cause of these shootings. Which would be an inadequate mental healthcare system. In your opinion what gun control law would have stopped this tragedy?

[CTyankee]

129. Oh, I dunno...pick a place in the civilized world where they have fewer gun deaths than we do...

and ask yourself, "what is it that we can learn from them?"

We are not the end all and be all of every civilized country in the the world...

[Dwayne Hicks]

130. I never said we were

Now please answer my question, what sort of gun control legislation would have stopped this?

[CTyankee]

153. Why n ot look at countries in the world where the populace likes having their guns and

doesn't have anywhere near our level of violence? Two countries come quickly to mind: Norway and Switzerland. Take a quick look at their safety regulations as well.

My guess is you'll come back and say "that won't work" for every single thing they do.

So if we agree that this most recent killing spree should be prevented, why don't you tell us what legislation YOU think would have helped?

I'll give you a chance to respond before I reach the same conclusion I get to with this kind of conversation. ...I hope you will pleasantly surprise me but...

[Dems to Win]

131. Agreed. 2A should be repealed, but won't. Time to abandon USA. Emigrate!

The massacres will continue unabated, we all know it's true.

If Sandy Hook didn't convince Americans to repeal the 2nd amendment, nothing ever will.

If I were younger, I'd be emigrating. Leave this place to the gun nuts. At least then the gun nuts will be forced to kill only one another, if all the sane people pack up and leave.

[flashbang]

132. Did you see what happened with that British host...

...Piers 'Charlie Potatoes' Morgan tried that on his show several times. Did you see what happened?

If everyone around you has guns, there's a deep desire to have them too. Yes, some paranoia lurks there. It's silly to deny it. Maybe paranoia's the wrong word. Maybe feeling that while everyone else can defend themselves if they need to, but you can't, is not a feeling the average person likes. I know people who own guns that haven't touched them in years and aren't all that precious about them. There are some people totally fixated on them. Getting each and every gun owner to examine their own motivations for using firearms, wether for hunting or punching paper, would be awful tough. It gives people a sense of empowerment in what appears to be an increasingly encroaching and anti-citizen political climate. Much of this is exploited and fueled by various lobby groups who have insane amounts of money to wine and dine pols. The People don't combine their financial power like corporations do, so the wining/dining option is out. Those who are vociferously opposed to or wish to ammend the Constitution probably better do it the old fashioned way: Vote and Protest.

I'm not unfamiliar with firearms nor those who use them responsibly. I do not agree with the gun junkies who need to parade and wave their gun 'rights' around in a mostly unarmed public. It is counter-productive, immature, and causes people who are just out and about unnecessary fear and anxiety. Sorry, but the gun swagger imo does not trump the majority of the public who just want to sit down and eat something. Most private citizens do not attach their self worth and identity to a firearm and keep away from yahoo's who need to murder traffic signs or otherwise act like idiots and yeah, I think if caught they should get a perma ban from gun ownership. A mature discussion with those types is next to impossible.

[Vattel]

135. I don't think we need a constitutional amendment. Just intelligent gun regulations.

[Booster]

149. Something I posted on my FB page. No responses, so far. lol

"Ok, if you won't go along with ANY gun regulations or background checks, how about a 10 year mandatory sentence for ANY ignorant asshole who leaves a loaded unsecured gun laying around where a kid can get it. My guess is you're not for that either for obvious reasons."

[Recursion]

154. The second amendment could go away and we'd be exactly where we are

The court has ruled clearly that background checks are allowable, but we still don't have the votes to get them in place for anyone except Federally licensed dealers.

[WinkyDink]

156. Wherein? The media? Hahahaha! Congress? Guffaw! Taking it to the streets? Better be armed!