To my way of thinking, there are VERY few examples of "responsible" gun owners.

[Stinky The Clown]

If you support the right of the INDIVIDUAL to own guns, you are part of the gun problem. It is really that simple. By supporting the INDIVIDUAL right to own guns, you support the right of the savory and the unsavory to own guns.

Well what about gun control, you might ask. Yeah, how's that been helping? There is simply no way to determine who would be responsible and who would not. Really. There is no way.

The military can be armed. Members of the military can be armed when doing their jobs. When off duty, the guns go back to the armory.

Police departments can be armed. Members of the department can be armed when doing their jobs. When off duty, the guns go back to the armory.

I'd even go so far as to say we can allow gun clubs and hunting clubs. When members go hunting and whatever silliness they might do at shooting ranges, they go to - wait for it - the police station and check out their gun for some set time. When done, they return it. Police stations are everywhere and they're manned, mostly, 24/7.

Guns are so dangerous that we as a society cannot tolerate their being in wide, uncontrolled possession.

You may think you're a responsible gun owner. And you may may well be. Any least now. But if your kid gets the gun and kills his brother. If your house is broken into and the guns get gone. If you lose your shit and go for the gun, you are NOT a responsible gun owner.

As to the guns out there now? Melt 'em. Enact HUGE penalties - enemy of the state level penalties - for simple possession. Allow the guns now to be surrendered. Maybe even allow their owners to continue to own at least of them. But they stay in police armories.

And for those of you with loose screws about fighting the tyranny of the state, those aren't muskets the army has. You, your three lunatic buddies and your pathetic little guns will be as consequential as a fart in a windstorm. And piss on your version of the liberty tree or whatever icon stolen from our forefathers you're stolen for your own twisted cause.

[villager]

1. I have notice that their being armed to the teeth didn't actually prevent Cheney/Bush from stealing

...two consecutive elections.

And indeed, our "rights" are steadily eroded as it is.

But as long as they can lock their clammy fingers on a military grade weapon, then "it don't worry me!"

[Bernielover357743]

2. Should we also start thinking about restricting the first amendment too?

This is a slippery slope. I think you have a poor understanding of exactly what the 2ed is for.

"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."

The second is not only meant for hunters.

enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection,
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

There are already over 357 million guns in the US. Why would you make criminals out of law abiding citizens?

This kind of rhetoric is why the right is buying up guns like crazy.

[safeinOhio]

6. The Swizz modle is what

The founding Fathers had in mind and I'd be good with those laws. Well regulated means strictly regulated.

[citood]

69. Without getting into the issue of gun control, a side note:

In the 18th and 19th Century, the term 'regulated' had a slightly different meaning.

It meant well functioning, or calibrated correctly. From The Oxford English Dictionary:

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

That meaning still has some relevance today - for example a fuel pressure regulator.

So, a 'well regulated militia' would be the synonym to 'high speed, low drag militia' today.

This is why legal arguments over the 2nd amendment tend to center around what a militia is, and whether or not we still have a militia...its been determined that any civil right can be 'reasonably regulated' in other cases (fire in crowded theater, etc), but its not like the 2nd amendment has its own unique regulation clause (by the modern meaning) built in.

[sarisataka]

10. Have to deal with that nasty fifth

That allows people to own private property and it can only be taken with compensation. Probably going to have to make a few changes to that fourth to ensure that people are turning stuff in...

Obviously that sixth will have to go also but then we're dealing with enemies of the state here.

[TipTok]

99. That's the dream...

A huge swath of folks who disagree politically removed from the system...

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Read your spew. Thank you for making my point

That is the height of masturbatory thinking.

The 2A talks about concepts that were current when it was written. It should have been repealed centuries ago.

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. Wow. You really fit the kook mold.

Now keep down below the window line, ok? I think I saw some big gummint-lookin' dudes hidin' in them thar bushes.

[ronnie624]

42. The last thing we need is a bunch of wingnuts running around "participating in law enforcement".

And what exactly are your guns going to accomplish against the armored vehicles and helicopters that a tyrannical government would be using?

Repelling invasion?
Suppressing insurrection?
"Natural right" to self defense?

These are fantasies that are completely divorced from reality.

[blm]

60. So, since many black men feel threatened and targeted by government tyranny then they are justified

to bear and use arms against those who are targeting them according to your interpretation of the 2nd? Or is that argument only supposed to be for RW white Bundy Ranch types?

After Nevada ranch stand-off, emboldened militias ask: where next?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militia-insight-idUSBREA3G26620140417

[philosslayer]

68. Well for one...

I think a discussion of outlawing hate speech, similar to what is banned in Europe, would be a worthy one to have.

[treestar]

71. It is restricted

Time place and manner regulations.

Each amendment is unique. This is an ineffective argument. It is purely fallacious.

[etherealtruth]

121. No rights are absolute. There are many restrictions/ limitations on the first amendment

When "your" right to something infringe on other's rights or the public safety/ well being limitations have been imposed on most of our enumerated rights (I am not aware of any restrictions and limitations associated with the third amendment)

[B2G]

3. That's because they never make the news

Because, they're you know...responsible.

[StraightRazor]

83. Kinda what I was thinking...

All the gun owners you never hear about who don't shoot anyone (about 41% of all American households have at least one gun, so roughly 145 million people) are responsible gun owners.

Turns out that there are far more responsible gun owners than irresponsible gun owners.

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Your way of thinking is very black and white...

gun ownership is grey.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Fuck grey

Dead people are VERY binary.

Alive

Bang

Dead

There are simply NO GOOD REASONS to own a gun.

[Joe the Revelator]

27. That is just silly.

Seriously. That argument and your idea that there is no grey is absolutely 100% certifiably silly.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. I'd like to see the papers

Joe

[Joe the Revelator]

38. Here ya go

[Stinky The Clown]

40. That's just a blank

Joe

[Joe the Revelator]

45. Sorry about that

http://imgur.com/a/rQ3bB

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Hahaha And you call me silly. :) Come on

Joe

[TipTok]

100. Oh... this is about saving lives?

If you are comfortable with stripping a few amendments away then you should start with what kills the most people.

Hint, it ain't guns...

What about mandatory fitness and diet requirements? You could save hundreds of thousands every year from heart disease and a litany of other diseases.

Are you interested in control or saving lives?

[lancer78]

139. Nanny-staters are only

interested in control. They and the Pro-Life crowd are different sides of the same coin.

[GulfCoast66]

5. The first step to improvement

Is to set achievable goals. Which the Democratic Party platform does.

But perhaps you prefer tilting at windmills. Because that is what advocating gun confiscation comes down to.

[X_Digger]

7. 99.5% of gun owners are 'responsible gun owners'.

There are some 80,000,000 gun owners in the US, who own about 325,000,000 guns.

Even if we assume that every gun with a crime, every negligent discharge, every suicide-- even if we assume that each of those is a separate person (e.g., no gun owner commits more than one crime)-- then the vast majority of gun owners are not involved in *any* of these events.

According to the BJS and the NCVS, there are about 300,000 gun crimes committed in 2014, iirc. Per the CDC's WISQARS, there were about 16,000 non-fatal and 500 fatal unintentional injuries with firearms (2014.) There were 20,000 or so suicides by firearm.

That's a total of 336,500 incidents. That's 0.4% of all gun owners. So 99.58% of gun owners are NOT involved in one of these incidents.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. That makes too many that aren't.

That is unacceptable.

[X_Digger]

21. Criminologists will tell you that it's a small percentage of folks who commit most crime.

So if we drop the assumption that all 300,000 gun crimes are perpetrated by separate people, and that criminals are part of that 80,000,000 owners, the number drops even more precipitously.

So tell me again how 99.95% of folks who aren't involved in crime or another incident should be restricted because of that 0.05%.

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Enjoy your toys, before Obama personally comes to confiscate every last one of them.

[X_Digger]

30. Math not your strong suit?

And I'll thank you to keep your fingers out of my mouth. My words come out just fine without help. Besides, I don't know where your fingers have been.

If you'd like to address the words that actually come out of my mouth (fingers) feel free.

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. Take your paranoia back to the Gungeon.

And yeah, in fact I do see the numbers of innocents mowed down by guns every day.

(No big deal for the humpers, though - it's just stats run amok)

[X_Digger]

54. I'm not the one freaking out and blaming 0.05% of gun owners. If there's someone paranoid..

.. then it isn't me.

[beevul]

119. Why then, do you want to make it about the ones that are...

Why then, do you want to make it about the ones that are responsible, instead of the ones that aren't?

[TheCowsCameHome]

122. Which ones are "reponsible"? How do we recognize them?

Point then out. Name them. Post their pictures. C'mon, back up your statement - show everyone who they are. We deserve to know - Because the not-so-responsible ones are giving your kind a really, really bad name these days, dude.

[beevul]

123. The difference between responsible and irresponsivble, is behavior.

Or were you thinking some sort of department of pre-crime?

On edit:

Because the not-so-responsible ones are giving your kind a really, really bad name these days, dude.

Only in the minds of those who wish to ignore the majority - 99.9x percent - those who do not commit gun violence.

Everyone else knows better, thankfully.

[TheCowsCameHome]

124. Uh-huh. I see. After it is too late,

and the carnage is done.

He was a great guy, a little hokey at times, but he musta just snapped or something. Got it.

[beevul]

125. Thats what laws are for, application against those who commit a crime.

Uh-huh. I see. After it is too late, and the carnage is done.

Thats what laws are for, application against those who commit a crime. Laws in the name of prevention have a drastic effect on those who follow them, but momumentally diminishing returns when it comes to preventing those who aren't law abiding, from commiting heinous atrocities.

How many examples of both is it going to take before people like you understand that?

Or do you just not care?

He was a great guy, a little hokey at times, but he musta just snapped or something. Got it.

Yeah, because that's the template for most gun deaths.

As arguments go, that one was particularly pathetic.

[jmg257]

126. Actually seems quite doable to identify potential gun violent perpetrators. Chicago,

Cincinnati, Albany, Newark, Richmond, etc. KNOW who the .5% are that commit 70-80% of the gun violence.

Just have to be REALLY serious about enacting the programs known to work to deal with them.

[treestar]

75. Interesting comparison

In other threads it came to light 7% of Muslims polled approved of terrorism. This was said to still be a large number of individuals and not to mean the religion was not more violent than others.

So anyone making this argument would agree that 7% should not condemn the whole religion. Since 5% of gun owners going wrong should not mean the rest should be restricted.

[X_Digger]

94. Not 5%, 0.5%. Half a percent. (I'm not commenting on the other subject, I haven't read that thread.)

[TeddyR]

8. I support the individual right to keep and bear arms

As does President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and the official platform of the Democratic Party. Of course, if you don't like the Dem platform then work to change it. I personally will work to support the platform of our party.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. I do not

[TeddyR]

26. Understood

Dems don't have to agree on everything (or we'd be Republicans).

[sarisataka]

9. Do you have any proposals

For your final solution of these enemies of the state and the gun question?

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Just a little over the top there bud

"Final solution"?

[sarisataka]

24. It seems to be

an over the top kind of day. After all we are declaring people simply possessing an object enemies of the state. What should be the punishment?

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Initially?

Gun surrender

Then confiscation

Then imprisonment

See? No "final solution".

Semper Fi

[sarisataka]

36. You still have a fifth amendment issue

Compensation for taking private property

Ooh-rah

[Stinky The Clown]

37. Read the remarks in the OP

There's room to make even you feel good on that score.

[sarisataka]

46. it is a bit to restrictive for my taste

But it is better than over-the-top melt them down hyperbole. All that does is play into the hands of the NRA

[Exilednight]

104. That amendment, per both parties, has no real standing.

In Houston the police can impound your car for a misdemeanor violation. Example: broken headlight. You can pay the fine, but the police are not required to turn the property back over to you, nor do they have to compensate you.

In fact, they can auction off the car and keep the proceeds of the sale.

[Lurker Deluxe]

105. **cough**BS**cough**

I live in Houston, and no ... they can not.

The police can not take your car and sell it out from under you for a broken headlight. That is complete garbage and no where close to reality. I guess they can toss you out of your house and sell that for not mowing your grass too??

Utter nonsense.

[Exilednight]

112. it's not utter bullshit, and as per your example, yes they can.

Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

My neighbor moved out three years ago and has done nothing to his yard. The grass is nearly 2 feet tall so they seized the house and it is now for auction.

http://m.chron.com/lavoz/houston-texas/article/Property-seized-by-E-Texas-police-called-1732387.php

[Lurker Deluxe]

117. Doesn't say what you stated

No where does that say that someones car was just taken from them and sold.

"preponderance of evidence that the property was used in the commission of certain crimes, such as drug crimes"

Not a broken headlight.

They signed to avoid charges and forfeited the property.

"they were presented with an ultimatum: waive your rights to your property in exchange for a promise to be released and not be criminally charged"

And ... they sued to get property back. Could probably find more, but this is a 8 year old example.

"Guillory is suing officials in Tenaha and Shelby County on behalf of Dorman and nine other clients who were stripped of their property"

Who seized the house? The state of Texas, the County .. or the home owners association, to which you sign an agreement. The city did not take it ... promise. An abandoned house is certainly not the same as the police throwing you out of your home and selling it out form under you. The HOA had to give all sorts of time and court summons to claim the property for back fee violations and the only way that happens is if someone was walking away from the property. The County can seize it for back taxes under some circumstances, the State would have to file eminent domain to take and they would have to be paid the value.

These "examples" you are giving do not back up your statement that police can simply confiscate property .. they can not.

[sarisataka]

106. The trouble with trampling rights

Is it becomes a new normal. That is why we must vigorously defend our rights lest losing them become accepted.

IMO it is an indelible stain on our Democratic leaders that any shred of Bush's Patriot Act still is enshrined in law.

[Igel]

49. And they don't surrender, then ...

Final solution.

And heaven help those who disagree with it, like many did during Prohibition. (Yes, there's a lesson there. No, I expect few to find it.)

[Stinky The Clown]

56. Yanno, Australia did it. Not long ago. Peacefully.

Any deaths that occur during confiscation would be the result of the authorities have to defend themselves against an antisocial asshole. The antisocial asshole would responsible for his own death.

No "final solution" there.

And by the way, the first use of "final solution" in this post was likely an unfortunate word choice. Or not. But I will assume it was.

Your use of it is wrong and shame on you. Those words in particular have a very specific meaning. Your use in this context cheapens them.

[beevul]

120. Australia did what, exactly?

Australia did what, exactly?

Melt them all down?

No, they didn't.

What they did do, certainly qualified as confiscation, though, just not of ALL guns.

[Waldorf]

12. Since about 0.003% of the firearms in this Country are used to murder someone, I'd say the other

99.997% are being used responsibly.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Until they're not

[Waldorf]

23. I guess you better raid my liquor cabinet. I'm responsible drinker, until I'm not.

Guess you better grab the gas can also. Might one day have arsonist visions.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. There ya go. Deflection and obfuscation

Have a swell day.

Buh bye.

[virginia mountainman]

32. OMI GOD..

You have "car keys"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MariaThinks]

80. I agree with you. Notice how panicked the gop is now about open carry in front of their convention

why are the police NOW asking for people to not bring their guns.

If guns were not the problem, why are they being asked not to bring them to the gop convention?

[TipTok]

101. Go dig up a pre-cog...

... Until then you'll just have to get by.

[beevul]

108. Most, the great majority, never become "not".

Bummer huh?

[MariaThinks]

81. that's all it takes to kill a lot of people these days.

[virginia mountainman]

15. Believe me, if gun owners where the "problem" you pretend them to be..

The millions of them would make it known immediately...

And no, I don't care what you think or want.. You are completely powerless to do anything about it..

I will continue doing what I do, and owning what I own, and carrying what I carry, irregardless of what YOU, or anyone else thinks..

After all, it is my right

[Stinky The Clown]

22. You are welcome to do whatever the fuck you wanna do

I think gun owners are a problem.

[virginia mountainman]

28. Ok, you can do that..No problem with it.

I draw the line at forcing MY personal beliefs on other people, to do so is tyranny, and must be vigorously resisted.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. What's next? Blood on the tree of liberty?

I'll take "Gimme a Break" for $200, Alex.

[Doodley]

43. Will you defend the right of others with bad intention to do the same?

[virginia mountainman]

55. If they make their intentions known..

Than they can be charged with conspiracy.....

[Doodley]

58. The mass shooters never are.

[FLPanhandle]

17. Your "way of thinking" needs improvement then.

I don't own a gun, but I do support the constitutional right of citizens to own basic firearms should they choose.

Basic firearms does not have to mean semi-automatic high magazine weapons though.

[Doodley]

41. Then, as the OP states, you support the right of crazy guys and would-be mass shooters to own guns.

I agree with the first post, that is part of the problem. A mindset that says everyone (even with restrictions) can own a gun, is a mindset that accepts people with bad intent can own guns and we know people with bad intent and a gun shoot and kill innocent people.

[Abq_Sarah]

96. Semi automatic weapons

Are basic firearms. They've been around for well over 100 years. From a mechanical standpoint, revolvers are generally more reliable, can fire faster, are more forgiving of bad grip technique and require less maintenance than a semi automatic pistol. The advent of speedloaders have made it easier and much faster to reload them. You can load one, put it in a drawer, take it out 10 years later and it will still go boom. You can't guarantee that with a semi auto.

Are you sure more revolvers and fewer semi autos are the answer?

[ZombieHorde]

34. I don't own a gun, but if police can have guns then

others should be allowed as well. The police have been waging war on certain demographics, and I believe they should be able to defend themselves, even if they almost always choose not to defend themselves. Just demonstrates that they are more restrained than the state-funded white-power forces.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. So you're okay with killing cops?

I ask because that's sure how your post comes across

[ZombieHorde]

44. If a human is trying to kill you,

then I believe the victim has the right to kill that human, regardless of anyone's place of employment. I'm not in favor of killing cops, capital punishment, or anything like that, but I do support self defense in the moment of danger.

[Doodley]

53. I hear what you are saying, but how does that work in practice?

A guy driving down the highway is pulled up for a broken light. A police officer approaches the car and asks for ID. Does the driver pull out a gun and point it at the officer at that point to defend himself?

If you don't want to die, I would not recommend engaging in a gunfight with police officers.

[ZombieHorde]

59. In my opinion, in that situation, the driver would be starting the violence.

In many to most situations involving police, the victim's gun would be useless. The people are at a disadvantage. However, in some situations, a person may be able to save their lives or the life of a loved one.

[Stinky The Clown]

70. Follow that thought out a little more

Construct such a situation. And make it such that it warrants having as many guns as we want. Or even one per person.

Thanks!

[ZombieHorde]

88. How about a country where some demographics are

strongly oppressed by state-funded forces, and some of the oppressed are being killed in the streets?

[Stinky The Clown]

89. So then we go back to the original thought. Killing cops is okay in your book.

Please tell me if I have misinterpreted your thoughts.

[ZombieHorde]

93. My old answer still applies. lol nt

[AgingAmerican]

47. I've owned guns responsibly my whole adult life

[Stinky The Clown]

51. For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that you're a model gun owner

How do we keep guns out the hands of people who aren't?

People with anger management issues

People with undiagnosed serious mental illness

People who have a quivering trigger finger

Forgetful people who lose gun cabinet keys

Et Cetera

Any one of the people I described can go from "responsible" to responsible for another human dying.

[egduj]

52. You'll never hear about a responsible gun owner.

Because they're responsible. They don't do anything irresponsible to warrant attention.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. I will never hear of one because they don't exist.

All gun owners keep the gun culture alive. Doing so is irresponsible.

[left-of-center2012]

61. I grew up with responsible gun owners

I grew up in a rural farming and coal mining area, where most men and women had guns and were hunters.
I never heard of anyone accidentally, or on purpose shooting, themselves or someone else.

I was taught gun safety by my father and older brothers, and as a Boy Scout our scout troop went to a gun range for proper training in gun safety. As I recall, we went six times and had to pass to get a hunting license.

I think the problem lies with people who get guns without the knowledge or training.

[aikoaiko]

62. I smiled when I read your OP for two reasons.

1. Because so few people actually believe as you do.

2. If you ever developed some commitment to this message, it will likely lead to more support for RKBA groups and less restrictions on firearms - just as we have seen over the last 20 - wt years.


Gun violence is a serious topic and worthy of action, but the anti-gun crowd went down the (partial) banning road before and the push-back was stunning.

[guillaumeb]

63. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible,

but because of the tiny number of irresponsible ones, many people die.

[UnFettered]

64. The issues not so cut and dry

You will never fully elimate gun violence in America at least not in any of our lifetimes. There are simply too many out there and let's face it violence is just imbedded in American culture.

Now buy doing two simple things we can move in the right direction. We should heavily restrict handguns and simply ban semi auto military type weapons. This would remove a lot of the problems. I think just eliminating handguns would most likely cut gun violence in half.

We need to push realistic meaningful regulations not some knee jerk reaction.

[Oneka]

65. So which is it really?

Guns are so dangerous that we as a society cannot tolerate their being in wide, uncontrolled possession.

Or:

your pathetic little guns will be as consequential as a fart in a windstorm

.

It cannot be both simultaneously.

[VOX]

66. Oh, they're ALL responsible, right up to the moment they aren't.

When you possess the the means to swiftly take a human life, you have a greater responsibility to repeatedly prove your fitness to carry the tools that may create that end. Background checks? You bet. Annual permit for each weapon owned? All for it. Mandatory safety training? Absolutely. Limit the number of weapons one person can own? Common sense.

So sick to death of America's lust-affair with weaponry. It's adolescent, at best, and flat-out nuts, at its worst. Prepper-humpers' wet dream of picking off the bad guys like in that nutter-fave flick, "Red Dawn" is ludicrous when you realize that the gov't has drones and robots and satellites, etc. Your gats are officially useless, just expensive paperweights. And a treasure for thieves.

[snpsmom]

67. I like to think we are

responsible. We only own long guns for hunting and predators. We unload after each use and target shoot. We're considering a gun safe bc we've recently become snowbirds.

[treestar]

72. That is a good point about

Cops and military. Though I guess they are allowed separate guns to defend themselves off hours. But where is the logic in the changeover ? If we all need two defend ourselves then they do too off hours

[Stinky The Clown]

73. If there are no other guns then they don't need them off duty either.

[treestar]

74. I'm surprised they are not

More in favor of gun control. It makes it more dangerous for them than it is in the UK etc and thus more likely they think someone is "reaching for his waistband." Thus we are more likely to get shit by them.

[Statistical]

76. Well the Democratic party disagrees with you.

Of course even if they agreed with you, your utter draconian measures would require repealing the second so why don't you get started on that.

[Stinky The Clown]

82. Couple of things:

First, While I'm a Democrat I am not in lock step. This is one of those points.

Next, and more importantly, what I propose does not require the repeal of the 2A. The 2A's allowing private gun ownership is an interpretation. I interpret it to mean what it says: a well regulated militia. See, here's what it says:

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. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Let's parse a few words, okay?

"A well regulated militia" does not even hint at a bunch of heavily armed yahoos running around waving their guns like a Baathist at a wedding celebration. It more likely means something like a police force, a national guard, an army, a navy. But in my view, it means the cops, or the local constabulary if you prefer archaic English.

This is further undergirded by the next phrase: "necessary for the security of a free state". They wanted the cops to keep us safe.

But the biggest is the final phrase about abridging this right. Notice that the word "People" is capitalized. If it said "the right of people to keep and bear arms" then the bands of heavily armed yahoos is what the founding fathers envisioned. But that's to what they said. The word People has a capital P. Because it means not the individual, but society. It means society's right. The right of We The People, not the right of we people.

Not one word of the 2A needs to be changed to do what I wish to do.

So how does it get done?

Easy. It goes to the Supremes. Or Congress. It becomes a matter of rules and regulations, not Constitutional changes.

[Statistical]

86. Hate to break it to you but it isn't capitalized in the original.

The "people" in the second is the same "people" in the other amendments as well.

The right is with the people not the militia.

[Stinky The Clown]

87. I stand by my interpretation.

[jmg257]

91. It is very creative. Nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

102. Parse all you want to, but you just lost your own argument by acknowledging this....

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. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

First off, we didn't have a Standing Army, during Peacetime, until the U.S. Military was created by Congress on Sept. 29th, 1789. The "Colonial Army", which fought in the Revolutionary War, was never an "Official Army of The United States".... http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/revolut/jb_revolut_army_1.html

As for the "Capital 'P'", there's this:

There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them


As passed by the Congress: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.{emphasis mine}

As ratified by the States: 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.

http://constitution.laws.com/2nd-amendment

Then the debate on the 2nd Amendnent by The Federalists & Anti-Federalists:

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion {All emphasis mine}

http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/

As for "It goes to the Supremes": IF you read the link right above this, you will be highly disappointed when your read this part:

Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.

Quite frankly, speaking as a gun owner, I have been so disgusted with the actions of people lately that I have gotten rid of all of my guns except for 2... a 12 gauge pump shotgun, and a .22 cal Benjamin pump-up PELLET gun that I have had for well over 30 years. I am trying to sell the shotgun now, as I need new tires for my car... and need them WAYYY more than I do the shotgun.

Good luck in your crusade, though, you are going to need a lot of it...

Peace,

Ghost

[Warpy]

77. Most rural gun owners are responsible

Around here the guns are used to keep the bears out of the trash and the predators away from the livestock. If a miracle occurs and a rural person who lives here gets a hunting permit, they're used to put meat into the freezer for the next year. These are the concerns of the people I know, not trying to use their little popguns against tanks and F-16s and artillery and worse. Many of them are vets and know better.

The problems are the people who think guns make them safer. They don't.

[AntiBank]

78. silly, not well thought out rambling post

repeal of the 2nd Amendment and absolute total confiscation is delusional, it will never happen, all it takes is 13 states to block, there are at least double that will block

sorry to be the voice of reality

[Stinky The Clown]

84. No need to repeal the 2A

See this explanation, right here in this thread, by me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028020562#post82

[AntiBank]

90. it will never happen, these threads are such a waste of time

TTFN

[Stinky The Clown]

92. But they sure do draw clicks!

[Lonusca]

107. People slow down at car crashes, too. nt

[Lance Bass esquire]

79. You are allowed to think anyway you want.

Its a free country.

You have that right.

A right that was bought and paid for by guys with guns who did way more than stand on a soapbox, but I am sure you know that.

That's all...Carry On.

[Stinky The Clown]

85. Don't equate some yahoos with a gun fetish to real patriots who would spill their blood if needed.

Shame on you. I will bet ANYTHING you know better than that and are simply going for the rhetorical parry.

Shame on you.

[flvegan]

95. Thank goodness for the disclaimer. Dumbest thing I've read all day. n/t

[StrictlyRockers]

97. Guns suck!!!

WE don't need guns to keep us safe.

[virginia mountainman]

98. Speak for yourself..

Personally, I will keep my options open. .

[EX500rider]

127. lol... that reminds me of this teeshirt:

[ileus]

103. Now that's progressive...

I know a minimum of 2 or 300 excellent citizens that own and support the 2A. The majority are also democrats...2A progressives.

[beevul]

109. Blame math...

To my way of thinking, there are VERY few examples of "responsible" gun owners.

Blame math, if you want to be consistent. Some asshole shoots someone else, and people like you blame the gun. So if the numbers suck, and you want to be consistent, you should be blaming math.

We know the facts:

There are roughly 100 million Americans who own guns.

That populace owns 300 million+ guns, and fires several billion rounds a year.

There are roughly 10 thousand gun homicides annually.

There are roughly 20 thousand gun suicides annually.

Your "way of thinking" ignores roughly half of the above 4 facts.

Guns are so dangerous that we as a society cannot tolerate their being in wide, uncontrolled possession.

The framers outlined and included a way to amend the constitution. The process isn't complex.

Get to it.

Meanwhile, 3/4 of the American people disagree with you.

If your house is broken into and the guns get gone.

Do you enjoy blaming the victim?

As to the guns out there now? Melt 'em. Enact HUGE penalties - enemy of the state level penalties - for simple possession.

What you're pushing, is for the state to become the enemy of the people, particularly since the authority to do as you suggest was explicitly forbidden from federal government.

What would ghandi say?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Ghandi
"Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446

Maybe "your way of thinking", is where the problem lies.

[Stinky The Clown]

110. Or Guns

Melt 'em

[beevul]

111. No.

Now what.

[Stinky The Clown]

113. See, here's the thing. I think your view is ABHORRENT

You think my view is silly and misguided.

In the end, you don't care about me and I don't care about you. You will NEVER change my mind with your bullshit NRA talking points and I will never change you mind with my silly ramblings.

And there we are.

So, save your time and say buh bye.

Buh bye

[beevul]

118. No, not silly and misguided. Abhorrent and offensive.

You think my view is silly and misguided.

No, not silly and misguided. Abhorrent and offensive.

You will NEVER change my mind with your bullshit NRA talking points and I will never change you mind with my silly ramblings.

When it comes to people like you, anything less than "melt em ALL down" is an "nra talking point".

And there we are.

So, save your time and say buh bye.

Well, then, I'll just leave you with this:

Every pro-gun poster on DU is closer to the Democratic Party platform on guns, than you are.

Maybe its you who should save yourself some time, and find a new party, one that reflects your extremist anti-gun views.

Buh bye

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. And I think *your* views on gun owners are on a par with Pam Geller's views on Muslims

Fortunately, even the Democratic party's platform disagrees with you...

[Stinky The Clown]

131. That's just slightly off base

I don't hate gun owners. I hate GUNZ.

I think more than a few gun owners are nutty, but that's probably reciprocal. I can deal with that.

[jmg257]

114. We might as well start with the known <1% responsible for 70-80% of gun crimes.

It seems easy enough for cities to identify the irresponsible gun owners actually committing the violence - Chicago does it, Richmond CA does it, Albany, Cincinnati and Newark know too.

From my way of thinking, let's start with those who are perfect examples of clearly irresponsible gun owners, especially since as many as 90% are repeat offenders so are very likely also illegal gun owners.


Preventing so many unsavory characters from owning guns, and/or wanting to use guns, through workable programs is a great idea.

And LE has the lists!

[Stinky The Clown]

115. Melt 'em

[jmg257]

116. That's the ticket! Gotta start somewhere.

And you can avoid immediately tangling with all the millions and millions of lawful people who are "part of the problem", long drawn-out constitutional battles, Justices like Stevens who agree in the individual right, etc. and still reduce gun violence by 70%.

Win-win.

[raven mad]

128. Well, heck, Stinky..............

The last one I fired was to keep a moose - big mama - out of the garden before she trashed our shed with our freezer in it.

I actually hit a pine branch that made a lot of noise, because I didn't aim it at a living creature. The pine branch was dead.

[former9thward]

130. I guess Obama is part of the "gun problem" in your words.

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

[Hoyt]

132. Gunners consider George Zimmerman a responsible gun owner, his Killing T Martin is counted

as a good "defensive gun use" in stats they like to quote apologizing for their predilection for lethal weapons.

[BlueStater]

133. Isn't being a "responsible gun owner" like being a "responsible flame thrower owner"?

I mean, they're both dangerous weapons that serve absolutely no purpose in every day life. Owning them in the first place is sort of irresponsible. Whatever.

[beevul]

134. Flame throwers are actually classified as agricultural equipment...

Flame throwers are actually classified as agricultural equipment, in the legal sense, because they're actually used in agriculture.

So "no purpose in everyday life" is factually untrue.

And, you're as wrong about guns, as you were about the flame thrower - just because you see /acknowledge/recognize no purpose, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[BlueStater]

136. They're weapons. They were first used during World War I.

Just because they found another use for them doesn't take away from the original purpose behind their creation. And, unless you're a farmer, they still don't serve a function in most peoples' lives.

Do you personally need a flame thrower? I know I certainly don't, just as I don't need a gun. Owning dangerous weapons whose main primary purpose is to kill things isn't my idea of responsibility.

[beevul]

137. Thats your opinion.

Just because they found another use for them doesn't take away from the original purpose behind their creation.

Just because they were originally created as weapons, doesn't take anything away those who use and own them legally.

Just like guns.

Do you personally need a flame thrower? I know I certainly don't, just as I don't need a gun.

No, but then, I have a number of things that I don't "need", and so do you.

Owning dangerous weapons whose main primary purpose is to kill things isn't my idea of responsibility.

In your view then, there can be no such thing as responsible private ownership of guns, right?

Bows too, because they were originally designed as weapons, right?

*shakes head*

[BlueStater]

138. Yeah, it's my opinion and I'm expressing it.

When bow and arrows are responsible for the deaths of over 30000 people every year, then I'll be troubled by people owning them.

And the stuff I own isn't typically used as deadly weapons capable of killing dozens of people in minutes.

[beevul]

140. Are those goalposts heavy?

When bow and arrows are responsible for the deaths of over 30000 people every year, then I'll be troubled by people owning them.

Are those goalposts heavy? Last post it was:

Owning dangerous weapons whose main primary purpose is to kill things isn't my idea of responsibility.

It seems bows main primary purpose, is to kill things.

And the stuff I own isn't typically used as deadly weapons capable of killing dozens of people in minutes.

Neither are the guns owned by roughly 100 million Americans. Why should they be treated any different than you are, and why should their 'stuff' be treated different than yours?

[BlueStater]

141. Your arms must be straining from all the reaching you're doing.

You have to compare guns, something that kills tens of thousand of people every year, to bows, something which barely kills anyone in the modern age, to make them look better.

Also, I've haven't called for their possessions to be treated differently than mine. Don't worry. I'm not a "gun grabber", unless you count desiring to keep them out of the hands of psychos who murder Elementary School students with them. Your precious gun(s) are safe and sound. I will, however, express my disdain for them and the culture surrounding them whenever I feel like it. That's well within my right and if you don't like hearing it then too damn bad.

[beevul]

142. ROFL. Its YOUR criteria.

You have to compare guns, something that kills tens of thousand of people every year, to bows, something which barely kills anyone in the modern age, to make them look better.

Did you or did you not say "Owning dangerous weapons whose main primary purpose is to kill things isn't my idea of responsibility"?

Are you or are you not, now walking back what you said, because you didn't think about it applying to bows when you said it?

I rest my case, but would comment that your attempt to spin this was embarrassingly poor. Again, the criteria was YOURS, not mine.

Also, I've haven't called for their possessions to be treated differently than mine. Don't worry. I'm not a "gun grabber", unless you count desiring to keep them out of the hands of psychos who murder Elementary School students with them.

Well, thats good to know, not that they'd be any less safe if you were.

I will, however, express my disdain for them and the culture surrounding them whenever I feel like it. That's well within my right and if you don't like hearing it then too damn bad.

I never said you should shut up, nor do I suggest it. Its much easier to debate and discuss with posters that don't remain silent.

[BlueStater]

143. If you own bows and arrows just for the sake of owning bows and arrows, it's irresponsible.

If you own them for the purpose of archery or hunting (or at least the hunters who actually EAT the meat rather than to just brag to their friends that they killed an animal), then it's not. I assume that's why most people would own them. It be pretty pointless to own a bow, otherwise.

My opposition to guns is similar to my opposition to cigarettes. I despise both deeply. I'm not in favor of taking away peoples' rights to own a gun or to smoke, even if I entirely disagree with both of these life choices. However, I still want guns out of the hands of violent, mentally ill people and I will never stop desiring otherwise.

[oneshooter]

144. And how do you feel about crossbows?

Personally I prefer Long Bows or Recurve. I shoot both, and have for over 30 years.

[jmg257]

135. Yup - no purpose, unless of course you want to burn something, or shoot something.

Then they come in real handy.

[onethatcares]

145. 8 year old Port Orange Florida boy

accidentally shot himself to death with a 9 millimeter handgun he found in the house he lived in.

No charges have been filed.

WHY GAUDAMMIT??

WHO OWNED THE FUCKING GUN? WHY WAS IT LEFT OUT FOR EASY ACCESS? WHO THE FUCK THINKS IT'S A SMART THING TO

DO AROUND 8 YEAR OLDS?

Charge the owner with criminal negligence, put them in jail. Start doing that and fewer handguns will feel the need to kill kids.

[REP]

146. Funny story

About 20 years ago, my apartment was broken into. My TV, CD player, VCR, almost all my jewelry and some of my underwear was stolen. My .410 shotgun - out in plain sight - was not.

I still haven't shot anything other than paper or clay. And damn it, forgot to have any children.