modernizing the 2A.

[Titanium_Frost]

1) If the person is capable of operating and understanding the gun, then I don't see a problem. If they are mentally incapable of understanding the consequences of using a gun, then they shouldn't.
I'm not sure about suicidal people. Sometimes there's a traumatic event that emotionally destroys a person. But with time they can recover. A gun is a quick way out. Other forms of suicide can deter action if the person acting on impulse alone.

2) Violent felons only. They have proven they do not value life enough to restrain themselves. If they have a gun, a simple argument could lead to death instead of a fist fight. Violent alcoholics too. Could be the nicest sober guy you know, but he Hulks out after a few beers and thinks he's Rambo.

3) At 16 you can legally drive a 4 ton truck. At 17 you are deemed mature enough to see R rated movies. At 18 you are legally an adult, and can die for your country. At 21 you can drink.
Putting aside all the other age debates, you cannot gauge maturity by a birthdate. There are 14 year olds that can drive better than 45 year olds. Considering how kids are being raised to not take responsibility, making broad generalizations is more dangerous than ever.

4) No. When they become a citizen, then they are eligible.

5) Testing and training. Like the DMV, only better quality.
Interview style tests. Yes/no, or multiple choice answers. Live fire training.
The specifics of the tests/training are a debate for people more informed than myself.

6) It is my understanding the constitution defines what powers the Fed retains, and what powers are turned over to each state. It is my understanding that the states regulate gun ownership. This has led to an extremely confusing situation of reciprocity. I think national uniformity should be established.
I think a way to leave it at the state level but grant uniformity would be to create a national firearms license. It's not a Federally controlled system. Rather it would require endorsement of all 50 States. You can obtain endorsements for hunting/carry/NFA/etc.... If you have a license, you don't have to worry about the patchwork laws. The level of training and knowledge you have received to obtained the license means you are responsible enough to own/carry a gun in any state.
Now, to keep the power at the state level, each state can have its own laws/permits/beliefs. The state level system would apply to people who choose NOT to have the National license.

I hope that made sense.

Have a need to feel superior to a lesser class of people? That is the only real reason for gun control, and that is ALL your "improved" version of the 2A is, a framework for gun control.

A gun makes people free. Gun control makes them slaves. You cannot regulate yourself into prosperity OR safety, you make it yourself.

I am a free and prosperous man today because I own and am willing to use my gun to protect it, you will never take away my freedom while I possess it.

Further, who gets to decide what counts as your gauging factors for gun control? More and more "diseases" are considered mental illness to the point that almost anyone can be considered unfit to possess a firearm by our government. You say it should be a State issue but then talk about conformity on a national level? Do you want a FEDERAL State to control you or a more local State of control?

You need to do a LOT more research in the real world and learn how things like Constitutions and laws really work before you go trying to "fix" our current system.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Tanks are a form of arms. So are fighter jets and hellfire missiles.

Your point? Are you ignorant of the fact that private individuals own tanks and fighterjets and all you need for high explosives is a permit from the BATF&E?

 

[hooky]

1) If the person is capable of operating and understanding the gun, then I don't see a problem. If they are mentally incapable of understanding the consequences of using a gun, then they shouldn't.
I'm not sure about suicidal people. Sometimes there's a traumatic event that emotionally destroys a person. But with time they can recover. A gun is a quick way out. Other forms of suicide can deter action if the person acting on impulse alone.

2) Violent felons only. They have proven they do not value life enough to restrain themselves. If they have a gun, a simple argument could lead to death instead of a fist fight. Violent alcoholics too. Could be the nicest sober guy you know, but he Hulks out after a few beers and thinks he's Rambo.

3) At 16 you can legally drive a 4 ton truck. At 17 you are deemed mature enough to see R rated movies. At 18 you are legally an adult, and can die for your country. At 21 you can drink.
Putting aside all the other age debates, you cannot gauge maturity by a birthdate. There are 14 year olds that can drive better than 45 year olds. Considering how kids are being raised to not take responsibility, making broad generalizations is more dangerous than ever.

4) No. When they become a citizen, then they are eligible.

5) Testing and training. Like the DMV, only better quality.
Interview style tests. Yes/no, or multiple choice answers. Live fire training.
The specifics of the tests/training are a debate for people more informed than myself.

6) It is my understanding the constitution defines what powers the Fed retains, and what powers are turned over to each state. It is my understanding that the states regulate gun ownership. This has led to an extremely confusing situation of reciprocity. I think national uniformity should be established.
I think a way to leave it at the state level but grant uniformity would be to create a national firearms license. It's not a Federally controlled system. Rather it would require endorsement of all 50 States. You can obtain endorsements for hunting/carry/NFA/etc.... If you have a license, you don't have to worry about the patchwork laws. The level of training and knowledge you have received to obtained the license means you are responsible enough to own/carry a gun in any state.
Now, to keep the power at the state level, each state can have its own laws/permits/beliefs. The state level system would apply to people who choose NOT to have the National license.

I hope that made sense.

Who is going to make the judgement call on these things you propose in order to retain the rights I have? What other rights do you think should be subject to an arbitrary test to see if I'm worthy of retaining them?

 

[downzero]

True, the 2A does apply to guns.

I would point out that much of the controversy, and indeed the liberal attack on the 2A has involved, so-called "pointless semantics" (that is grammar and the meaning of words). It is precisely semantics that enables us to understand each other.

It's not about semantics; it's about pragmatics.

Somehow, people seem to suggest that if a debate is about semantics, it's invalid anyway. Which is in itself bull****, but it would at least make sense if they knew what semantics is. Studying meaning is important and arguing about it and figuring out what words really mean does matter!

The social use of language is called pragmatics and is indeed an important consideration in understanding each other in any debate, perhaps even more important than the meaning of any particular word or phrase. Constitutional law has many dimensions, but if the text itself is going to have any meaning at all, some discussion of pragmatics is essential to that understanding.

To answer the original poster's question, hell no I would not deny a free man the use of arms, and if you don't trust your fellow free men with arms, then you're the problem, not them. Freedom IS dangerous! That's the whole point. Respecting freedom is acknowledging that freedom is dangerous and taking the risk anyway that others may use their freedom to do improper and antisocial things.

That is why T_F is telling you that we can't regulate our way to more freedom. We can't. We can, however, focus on dealing with those who abuse their freedom and cause harm to other people.

 

[downzero]

6) It is my understanding the constitution defines what powers the Fed retains, and what powers are turned over to each state. It is my understanding that the states regulate gun ownership. This has led to an extremely confusing situation of reciprocity. I think national uniformity should be established.
I think a way to leave it at the state level but grant uniformity would be to create a national firearms license. It's not a Federally controlled system. Rather it would require endorsement of all 50 States. You can obtain endorsements for hunting/carry/NFA/etc.... If you have a license, you don't have to worry about the patchwork laws. The level of training and knowledge you have received to obtained the license means you are responsible enough to own/carry a gun in any state.
Now, to keep the power at the state level, each state can have its own laws/permits/beliefs. The state level system would apply to people who choose NOT to have the National license.

I hope that made sense.

Now you want to nationalize the system, too?

This quote begins with a false premise, that the national constitution defines the role and/or of the states. This is false. Neither the original constitution nor the bill of rights constrained the states. See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) if you don't know why. It was probably thought at the time of the founding that the national government, at least outside of its enumerated and implied powers, lack the authority to define the states' power.

The civil war and the 14th Amendment changed all that in certain, meaningful ways. But the constitution does not now and has not ever defined the roles of the states.

If you want to grant further powers to the federal government and eliminate the 50-state solution we have now, which it itself a byproduct of federalism, then you will need to amend the constitution.

I personally would not only not support this move, but I support amending the constitution to further deny the national government any additional powers and to take away some that it has seized for itself in the last 150 years. So good luck with your amendment process; I hope it fails in a blaze of glory.

I also suggest that you take a college level course in American government, because it seems like you didn't get much out of high school U.S. history class.

 

[JettaKnight]

We have things the founding fathers never could have dreamed of.


4) Immigrants?

O RLY?

 

[Sigasaurus]

The country changes to accommodate the constitution not vice versa. Wasn't written for interpretation it means what it says. IMHO

 

[Stschil]

Repeal and Replace????? No thanks, I'll stick with the original.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

So the 2A says anyone can own a gun. But is that really a good thing? The country has changed a lot in the last 221 years. My reasoning for this post is b/c I see so many interpretations of the constitution and how it applies to modern day. We have things the founding fathers never could have dreamed of.

1) Should the mentally ill (or w/e your preferred term is) be allowed?
Yes I know this in an extremely broad label, be specific with your response if you want.

2) Should criminals be allowed?
Tax evasion and battery are two very different felonies.

3) What age should ownership be allowed?

4) Immigrents?

5) Depending on your opinion, how do we filter out people.

6) It should be a state level issue, but how do we make it nationally uniform.


I'm sure there are more, I can add them to this post as they get brought up.

I haven't read all the posts between the op and this one yet. I will , but before I do I gotta say your walking down a slippery slope when you start trying to decide who we'll let have 'em. The real question ought to be to whom do you feel comfortable giving up the decision making process.Eventually only their friend or supporters will own them and then where are we? Leave it alone, its stood all this time, it needs no modification.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Only thing I would even consider changing is instead of "A well regulated militia", I would have had it read "An armed citizen". I think that would eliminate a lot of confusion.

What's interesting about your stance (which I do agree with BTW), is that if the RTBA is an unalienable natural right, then the Constitution, purely based on the text doesn't recognize that as being factual. The words "militia" and "free state" imply that only those with an legitimate interest in the security of themselves and their state/nation shall not be infringed. I think that effectively works to prevent non-Americans from obtaining firearms should the govt wish it so.

 

[downzero]

What's interesting about your stance (which I do agree with BTW), is that if the RTBA is an unalienable natural right, then the Constitution, purely based on the text doesn't recognize that as being factual. The words "militia" and "free state" imply that only those with an legitimate interest in the security of themselves and their state/nation shall not be infringed. I think that effectively works to prevent non-Americans from obtaining firearms should the govt wish it so.

Stating "a" purpose doesn't mean that it's the only purpose.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

What's interesting about your stance (which I do agree with BTW), is that if the RTBA is an unalienable natural right, then the Constitution, purely based on the text doesn't recognize that as being factual. The words "militia" and "free state" imply that only those with an legitimate interest in the security of themselves and their state/nation shall not be infringed. I think that effectively works to prevent non-Americans from obtaining firearms should the govt wish it so.

I'm gonna disagree with you on that one. Here's why:

The "Well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free sate" part is the reasoning behind the right. It does not make the right valid, it gives the right purpose.

"The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" is the right and it stands on its own, apart from the initial phrase.

Personally IMO Indiana's clause is better than the US version:

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

 

[Hop]

FIFY. "Armed" assumes they already have a gun.

*Edit*
that means the 2nd would read as follows.
"A citizen of the United states of America, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


any other modification I believe is unacceptable.

That doesn't work. A "well regulated militia" back then meant "people with arms in good working condition".

 

[Booya]

What's interesting about your stance (which I do agree with BTW), is that if the RTBA is an unalienable natural right...

I generally agree with you most times, but I've heard this a lot of times and I disagree. RTBA is not an unalienable "natural" right unless you're referring to sticks & stones. I liken that to "right to own a car" is a "natural" right. There is no natural right to own firearms because they're not natural. There is no natural right to own specific man made machines... I don't think gun ownership is a god given right and I've heard it described as that...

 

[hooky]

I gotta agree with T_F. Indiana's constitution lays it out much better.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That doesn't work. A "well regulated militia" back then meant "people with arms in good working condition".

Actually the Founders wanted to rely on a Citizen Army rather than a standing federal army for national defense becuase they did not like the idea of a large, heavily armed, government employed force in peacetime.

Ironically that would keep us out of other country's business as well...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I generally agree with you most times, but I've heard this a lot of times and I disagree. RTBA is not an unalienable "natural" right unless you're referring to sticks & stones. I liken that to "right to own a car" is a "natural" right. There is no natural right to own firearms because they're not natural. There is no natural right to own specific man made machines... I don't think gun ownership is a god given right and I've heard it described as that...

What about self defense, and the best means to carry out said defense? Is THAT a "natural right?"

 

[mrjarrell]

I gotta agree with T_F. Indiana's constitution lays it out much better.

While I prefer to use Indiana's for many in state issues, I do not prefer it over the 2nd. The Indiana version actually grants a right. It creates it. It does not acknowledge an unalienable right that should not be infringed or taken away. It is, in that respect, inferior to the 2nd.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I generally agree with you most times, but I've heard this a lot of times and I disagree. RTBA is not an unalienable "natural" right unless you're referring to sticks & stones. I liken that to "right to own a car" is a "natural" right. There is no natural right to own firearms because they're not natural. There is no natural right to own specific man made machines... I don't think gun ownership is a god given right and I've heard it described as that...

I get your point, but I telling you now, your going to be taken to task on this one.

 

[ATM]

...There is no natural right to own firearms because they're not natural...

The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with whether those arms exist naturally or are created. It is rooted in the natural right to defend life and property, not such sticks, stones or more complex weaponry as may be employed to those ends.

To argue using this basis would be a fallacy of logic.