modernizing the 2A.

[mikedippert]

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.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Personally, I'd be ok with pressing the reset button and starting all over again with the original document and the first 10 amendments.

 

[SEIndSAM]

 

[Stschil]

Free for me and not for Thee?

Don't even suggest that there be a 'reevaluation', the instant you give in and accept it, kiss ALL your freedoms (whatever is left that is) good bye.

'Being Necessary to the security of the Free State!

 

[ryan3030]

Personally, I'd be ok with pressing the reset button and starting all over again with the original document and the first 10 amendments.

The romantic part of me loves this idea and agrees with you 100%.

The reasonable part of me realizes that this would be a terrible idea

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Personally, I'd be ok with pressing the reset button and starting all over again with the original document and the first 10 amendments.

 

[jayhawk]

No need for a re-evaluation. The constitution (and Bill of Rights) is a living document.

 

[mikedippert]

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.

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.

 

[cosermann]

So the 2A says anyone can own a gun. . ..

No, the 2A secures the right to "keep and bear arms." It says nothing about guns specifically.

"Arms" is the general term that applies to weapons (means of offense or defense) of all sorts. "Firearms" are only one type of arms.

Properly understood, the 2A applies just as much to knives as firearms for example; as well as "polearms," crossbows, clubs, cannons, armor, etc.

 

[hacksawfg]

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.

 

[mikedippert]

No, the 2A secures the right to "keep and bear arms." It says nothing about guns specifically.

"Firearms" are only one type of arms. Arms is the general term that applies to weapons (means of offense or defense) of all sorts.

Properly understood, the 2A applies just as much to knives as firearms for example; as well as "polearms," crossbows, clubs, cannons, armor, etc.

Pointless semantics. Guns are a form or arms, therefore, 2A says we can have guns.

 

[mrjarrell]

Personally, all I'd suggest is getting rid of the militia clause. It's caused too many problems for us. Then we could just follow the Atlanta Declaration for everything else.

http://billstclair.com/luxlucre/AtlantaDeclaration.swf

 

[cosermann]

Furthermore, nothing in your list is something the founding fathers never dreamed of.

1. Mentally ill folks existed then.
2. Criminals existed then.
3. Surprisingly, people of all ages existed then.
4. MOST of them were immigrants.
5. States vs. Federal rights was certainly on their mind.

Unless by, "never dreamed of," you mean firearms that shoot more than 6 rounds a minute.

If that's the case, then by that same reasoning, recently developed cults and hokey religions and the development of the ball point pen, assault typewriter, and Internet (forums, blogosphere, free media, etc.) would imply that we should limit the First Amendment.

 

[cosermann]

Pointless semantics. Guns are a form or arms, therefore, 2A says we can have guns.

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.

Semantics are patently not pointless, but are indeed part of the point.

I'm suggesting that the premise of your initial post is too limited. What about phasers once those are invented? Be careful what restrictions are suggested for firearms, because there's no reason not to apply them to all arms, which is why restrictions on ANY type of arm have been used to chip away at the 2A for decades.

If one begins wrongly, it's difficult to end up rightly.

 

[Westside]

Only thing I would even consider changing is instead of "A well regulated militia", I would have had it read "[STRIKE]An armed[/STRIKE]A citizen of the United states of America". I think that would eliminate a lot of confusion.

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.

 

[Hoosier8]

The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed...except....fill in the blank. Wait till Barbera Boxer gets a hold of it.

 

[ATM]

Pointless semantics. Guns are a form or arms, therefore, 2A says we can have guns.

Don't cheapen it. It does not "say we can have guns", it forbids the infringement of our RKBA.

Leave it be, lest we turn it into something that merely says we can have guns.

 

[poptab]

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

 

[Birds Away]

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

...sorry, I was checking the classifieds for any cool polearms.

 

[45calibre]

Free for me and not for Thee?

Don't even suggest that there be a 'reevaluation', the instant you give in and accept it, kiss ALL your freedoms (whatever is left that is) good bye.

'Being Necessary to the security of the Free State!

there seems to be a lot of that going around.