modernizing the 2A.

[Mark-of-Scotland]

You have a Don't tread on me as your avatar

That's called a Gadsden Flag by the way.
Sorry for nit picking...i don't often get to talk about stuff i know about here.

EDIT: 100TH POST WHOO HOO JACK DANIELS TIME

 

[Titanium_Frost]

"All citizens of the United States of America shall not be restricted in the ownership, transport or use of any arms (firearms, knives or other weapons of any kind), for sport, individual or common defense. No restrictions shall be placed on the size, caliber, gauge, length, length of barrel or operating mode (manual, semi-automatic, fully automatic) or location said arms are carried, used, transported or stored.
Furthermore, no level of government, local, state or federal, nor any branch thereof, shall be permitted to possess or use any form of arm for any purpose, that is denied the individual citizen.
An violation of this amendment shall be prosecuted to the fullest as treason."

That should just about do it, I think. (-:

Except that you do not have to be a citizen in America to have 2A rights. Anyone legally residing here can buy a gun or obtain a LTCH.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Furthermore Minuteman our government has walked all over an Amendment that practically says: "The right of the people to possess and carry weapons shall not be restricted" yet they do.

Think if the forefathers said "Citizens of the 13 colonies possess the unrestricted right to cannons and muskets."

 

[mikedippert]

I'm torn about the whole thing, obviously. No I don't believe the govt should be allowed to limit weapons. But I don't think every 10 year old with down's syndrome should be able to buy a gun if they decided to on a whim.

I suppose teaching social responsibility is the real answer. How are you going to feel when a family member is killed by a 13 year old that saved his pennies for a year and bought a gun? Are you going to shrug it off and say to bad so sad? Go after the kid? Go after the parents? The shop or person that sold the kid the gun? I think I would feel malice toward each of the parties and some point. Would that event change any aspect of your views on the 2A? E.g. Showing an understanding of the gun and what it is capable of before buying.

Those are the types of situations I was contemplating when I created this thread. I haven't read through every post yet, but I will. I am ignorant and naive about many things. It's a learning process for me to read the opinions and look at it from different angles. I thank those who were respectful in their comments. Too often people forget they too were young with everything to learn.



The 2A doesn't clarify if bearing arms is just ownership or carrying. Since there is no clarification, I assume it was intended to extend to carrying, not just ownership. My thoughts on the training business was a "what would it take" thought. If you asked each congressman and governor what it would take for them to be comfortable with any average citizen carrying a gun anywhere. Get all 585 of them to agree on something that would be a 50-state recognized set of carry laws. This more stringent set of requirements would be optional. If you choose not to spend the time/money to meet the requirements, then you are subject to each states' individual laws, just like now.
Obviously no restrictions is ideal, but we are well past that freedom for the foreseeable future.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The 2A doesn't clarify if bearing arms is just ownership or carrying.

You really need to do yourself a favor and quit thinking outloud. Try reading some books and not just talking to your friends or watching TV.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I'm torn about the whole thing, obviously. No I don't believe the govt should be allowed to limit weapons. But I don't think every 10 year old with down's syndrome should be able to buy a gun if they decided to on a whim.

I suppose teaching social responsibility is the real answer. How are you going to feel when a family member is killed by a 13 year old that saved his pennies for a year and bought a gun? Are you going to shrug it off and say to bad so sad? Go after the kid? Go after the parents? The shop or person that sold the kid the gun? I think I would feel malice toward each of the parties and some point. Would that event change any aspect of your views on the 2A? E.g. Showing an understanding of the gun and what it is capable of before buying.

Those are the types of situations I was contemplating when I created this thread. I haven't read through every post yet, but I will. I am ignorant and naive about many things. It's a learning process for me to read the opinions and look at it from different angles. I thank those who were respectful in their comments. Too often people forget they too were young with everything to learn.



The 2A doesn't clarify if bearing arms is just ownership or carrying. Since there is no clarification, I assume it was intended to extend to carrying, not just ownership. My thoughts on the training business was a "what would it take" thought. If you asked each congressman and governor what it would take for them to be comfortable with any average citizen carrying a gun anywhere. Get all 585 of them to agree on something that would be a 50-state recognized set of carry laws. This more stringent set of requirements would be optional. If you choose not to spend the time/money to meet the requirements, then you are subject to each states' individual laws, just like now.
Obviously no restrictions is ideal, but we are well past that freedom for the foreseeable future.

Do 13 year olds vote? Is there a reason?

 

[Rhoadmar]

Does "infringed" mean "impaired in any way" or merely to eliminate something?


"Shall" is one of the most misunderstood words of command in the English language. It really should mean the same thing as "must" just as "necessary" and "absolutely necessary" should mean the same thing, but the reality is that those two words are not always interpreted that way. I even read an article about legal writing this past summer that suggested that we never use the word "shall" and instead use "must" or "must not" to eliminate any possible ambiguity.

And I am not so sure on the latter point. I would like "infringe" to mean "impair in any way," but I suspect that its historical meaning is something more along the lines of restricting something to a certain point.

"Shall not be restricted" to me means what you think "shall not be infringed" means. As in, cannot be frustrate

d or limited in any way.

Leave it to lawyers to maneuver any semblance of beauty out of the language.

 

[mikedippert]

Do 13 year olds vote? Is there a reason?

Are you trying to make some kind of age/maturity point?

Do you believe the govt should be allowed to restrict gun sales to 13 year olds?
If yes, how is that restriction not infringing upon the 2A?
If no, what's the point of your voting comment?

I can tell you're getting annoyed with me. I just want to try to understand how others see it? I'll go read books and Supreme court rulings dealing with it, but obviously its open to enough interpretation to allow for the level of gun control we have. Whether its right or wrong or whether you agree or not, the gray area exists. Any particular books or articles you recommend to help me not seem like a libtard dumbass?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Are you trying to make some kind of age/maturity point?

Do you believe the govt should be allowed to restrict gun sales to 13 year olds?
If yes, how is that restriction not infringing upon the 2A?
If no, what's the point of your voting comment?

I can tell you're getting annoyed with me. I just want to try to understand how others see it? I'll go read books and Supreme court rulings dealing with it, but obviously its open to enough interpretation to allow for the level of gun control we have. Whether its right or wrong or whether you agree or not, the gray area exists. Any particular books or articles you recommend to help me not seem like a libtard dumbass?

My point is that it is CLEARLY understood in our culture today that you do not get to exercise the rights of an adult until you ARE an adult. Purchasing a firearm is a tremendous responsibility and one that should belong to an adult.

No I do not think that a 13 y/o should vote or buy a gun by themselves. If their parent or responsible guardian gives them the responsibility of a firearm it is their (the parents) responsibility to make sure the child knows how to use it properly and safely.

Just because someone should not have something does NOT mean that the government should regulate it but in today's society there is no such thing as personal responsibility.

 

[Roadie]

I'm torn about the whole thing, obviously. No I don't believe the govt should be allowed to limit weapons. But I don't think every 10 year old with down's syndrome should be able to buy a gun if they decided to on a whim.

I suppose teaching social responsibility is the real answer. How are you going to feel when a family member is killed by a 13 year old that saved his pennies for a year and bought a gun? Are you going to shrug it off and say to bad so sad? Go after the kid? Go after the parents? The shop or person that sold the kid the gun? I think I would feel malice toward each of the parties and some point. Would that event change any aspect of your views on the 2A? E.g. Showing an understanding of the gun and what it is capable of before buying.

Those are the types of situations I was contemplating when I created this thread. I haven't read through every post yet, but I will. I am ignorant and naive about many things. It's a learning process for me to read the opinions and look at it from different angles. I thank those who were respectful in their comments. Too often people forget they too were young with everything to learn.



The 2A doesn't clarify if bearing arms is just ownership or carrying. Since there is no clarification, I assume it was intended to extend to carrying, not just ownership. My thoughts on the training business was a "what would it take" thought. If you asked each congressman and governor what it would take for them to be comfortable with any average citizen carrying a gun anywhere. Get all 585 of them to agree on something that would be a 50-state recognized set of carry laws. This more stringent set of requirements would be optional. If you choose not to spend the time/money to meet the requirements, then you are subject to each states' individual laws, just like now.
Obviously no restrictions is ideal, but we are well past that freedom for the foreseeable future.

KEEP and bear arms...

 

[beararms1776]

I suppose teaching social responsibility is the real answer.

Somewhat.
There's no reason to modernize it. There's nothing old about Keep and bear arms. A barbaric society or gov. or both is all the more reason to have it. The first instant of modernizing it, will be the beginning to the end of it.

 

[mikedippert]

My point is that it is CLEARLY understood in our culture today that you do not get to exercise the rights of an adult until you ARE an adult. Purchasing a firearm is a tremendous responsibility and one that should belong to an adult.

No I do not think that a 13 y/o should vote or buy a gun by themselves. If their parent or responsible guardian gives them the responsibility of a firearm it is their (the parents) responsibility to make sure the child knows how to use it properly and safely.

Just because someone should not have something does NOT mean that the government should regulate it but in today's society there is no such thing as personal responsibility.

That's what I figured you were saying, and I agree *shock*. I am against government regulation of most things. So absent of widespread personal responsibility, what is a realistic approach to handling this? I will concede that rewriting the 2A is a horrible idea and opens a Pandora's box. But it seems that any means to prevent irresponsible gun ownership will violate the 2A. Do we just do our best to teach personal responsibility to our children and accept the fact that there WILL be failures resulting in tragedies?
I think we have moved well beyond reverting back to personal responsibility, at least for the foreseeable future. I feel the acceptance part is where we got soft so to speak. Instead of being truthful with ourselves that horrible things will happen, we tried to prevent them with legislation and place blame when they still happen.

*edit* By "we" I mean the country as a whole.

 

[printcraft]

......... Do we just do our best to teach personal responsibility to our children and accept the fact that there WILL be failures resulting in tragedies?
.............

The perils of a free society.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That's what I figured you were saying, and I agree *shock*. I am against government regulation of most things. So absent of widespread personal responsibility, what is a realistic approach to handling this? I will concede that rewriting the 2A is a horrible idea and opens a Pandora's box. But it seems that any means to prevent irresponsible gun ownership will violate the 2A. Do we just do our best to teach personal responsibility to our children and accept the fact that there WILL be failures resulting in tragedies?
I think we have moved well beyond reverting back to personal responsibility, at least for the foreseeable future. I feel the acceptance part is where we got soft so to speak. Instead of being truthful with ourselves that horrible things will happen, we tried to prevent them with legislation and place blame when they still happen.

*edit* By "we" I mean the country as a whole.

Yes. Exactly.

Look at it this way: No one is getting out of this world alive. I would rather live for one day as a free man than a lifetime as a slave.

There is no real safety net in real life. Name ANY group of people in the world today and tell me they can't get a gun in America. In Evansville gangbangers have a firearm within hours of being released from felonies. Mentally ill but never went to a hospital? You can buy a gun and ammo from a dealer in minutes. Under 18? There is a 100% chance that you know someone with unsecured firearms in their home.

All the laws and control in the world will not change that. They can't even keep prisoners- the most controlled group on the planet from killing each other with weapons they make themselves or smuggle inside.

If you have an arm and a hand you can kill any human being- 15lbs of pressure to the throat will choke someone to death.

 

[ATM]

...If you have an arm and a hand you can kill any human being...

Adding a hammer is more fun.

 

[mikedippert]

I understand.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I understand.

 

[beararms1776]

That's what I figured you were saying, and I agree *shock*. I am against government regulation of most things. So absent of widespread personal responsibility, what is a realistic approach to handling this? I will concede that rewriting the 2A is a horrible idea and opens a Pandora's box. But it seems that any means to prevent irresponsible gun ownership will violate the 2A. Do we just do our best to teach personal responsibility to our children and accept the fact that there WILL be failures resulting in tragedies?
I think we have moved well beyond reverting back to personal responsibility, at least for the foreseeable future. I feel the acceptance part is where we got soft so to speak. Instead of being truthful with ourselves that horrible things will happen, we tried to prevent them with legislation and place blame when they still happen.

*edit* By "we" I mean the country as a whole.

Never stop teaching personal responsibility. It's all part of the very foundation we all stand on.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Adding a hammer is more fun.

???

 

[Mark-of-Scotland]

Haha sorry.