The 2nd Amendment Has Never Been Amended

[.300 dadbod]

Every American that is not incarcerated should be able to walk into a non-FFL holding hardware store and purchase a full-auto, suppressed, rifle/SMG/pistol/ shotgun of their choice, with whatever barrel length desired, with or without a stock, and no background check.

It is absolutely rediculous that the legality of bump stocks, solvent traps, pistol braces, and FRTs is even a topic for discussion.

 

[PRasko]

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

Well then... IBTL.

 

[Mgderf]

I concur

 

[jwamplerusa]

Yes, and every capable citizen should be expected to have an adequate arm and show a minimum level of marksmanship.



And those who have power over others, hate that very possibility. For if those with power do not have superiority of arms, they would dare to be a citizen and not a subject.

I am a citizen.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'd say most everybody on this site agrees with that take, with the exception of some debate over how to handle certain types of criminals. I happen to agree more with the side that says if you don't trust them with a gun, they should be locked up and not walking the streets, so there really shouldn't be any laws pertaining to felons owning guns, but there are some who disagree.

I would say mental issues is another place where people draw a line. In general, if someone has serious enough mental issues that they have to be treated as a child, and not be given the same rights/responsibilities/liberties as an ordinary adult, and basically treated as a child, I'd say it's pretty non-controversial to also agree that they shouldn't be owning guns, either.

I'm curious, though, if anyone here has any other place they would draw a line? Like say, should private ownership of nukes be banned? If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to start their own private arsenal of nuclear missiles, is that part of their right to keep and bear arms?

 

[BJHay]

There are three groups that I don't think should have access to firearms:

1. Violent felons
2. Unsupervised children
3. Those who are mentally deranged.

I'm curious, though, if anyone here has any other place they would draw a line? Like say, should private ownership of nukes be banned? If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to start their own private arsenal of nuclear missiles, is that part of their right to keep and bear arms?

This is a good question that I don't hear discussed very often. What is the limit, if any, on the 2A?

One of many definitions for "bear" is "to move while holding up and supporting (something)"
Does that mean the 2A only covers arms that can be carried by a person (thus eliminating nukes and artillery)?

I live rural. What if my neighbor bought a 155mm Howitzer and left it loaded and pointed at the nearest town or high school? What if there was no fence or security around it? Would that be OK?

 

[76Too]

Well then... IBTL.

Why would this get locked? He’s right, you know.

 

[cg21]

I'd say most everybody on this site agrees with that take, with the exception of some debate over how to handle certain types of criminals. I happen to agree more with the side that says if you don't trust them with a gun, they should be locked up and not walking the streets, so there really shouldn't be any laws pertaining to felons owning guns, but there are some who disagree.

I would say mental issues is another place where people draw a line. In general, if someone has serious enough mental issues that they have to be treated as a child, and not be given the same rights/responsibilities/liberties as an ordinary adult, and basically treated as a child, I'd say it's pretty non-controversial to also agree that they shouldn't be owning guns, either.

I'm curious, though, if anyone here has any other place they would draw a line? Like say, should private ownership of nukes be banned? If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to start their own private arsenal of nuclear missiles, is that part of their right to keep and bear arms?

Would make trade deals on Wall Street MUCH more interesting.



I think there should be no other lines. I agree with you if trusted to walk the streets felons should be trusted to defend themselves and not harm others. There are countries that have nukes that I trust less than bezos and musk. (With armies also) so that being said besides the clout I don’t think having a nuke in a closet is a game changer?

 

[Kurr]

Like say, should private ownership of nukes be banned? If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to start their own private arsenal of nuclear missiles, is that part of their right to keep and bear arms?

There is as I understand it a difference between Arms and Ordnance.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Looks like a subject that can get some good discussion here today. How about, if you wrote a bad check for over $75 in New Mexico in 1965? Or, got busted with two joints in that same year? Why are these people prohibited from possessing firearms?

A few years back Guy (Relford) got a felony expunged for an old preacher, who had been a prohibited possessor for over 50 years. Got busted with two joints while he was in college.

We still have a lot of work to do on the 2A front.

 

[KLB]

I live rural. What if my neighbor bought a 155mm Howitzer and left it loaded and pointed at the nearest town or high school? What if there was no fence or security around it? Would that be OK?

Canon and warships were both privately owned back then.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I live rural. What if my neighbor bought a 155mm Howitzer and left it loaded and pointed at the nearest town or high school? What if there was no fence or security around it? Would that be OK?

Canon and warships were both privately owned back then.

Yep, like KLB said, it would appear from a historical perspective that the 2nd Amendment is, indeed, meant to apply not only to those arms that one can carry, but also to larger arms such as artillery pieces.

Now, of course, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that one has a "right" to recklessly endanger others with those arms, so I would say that in BJHay's hypothetical scenario, what the neighbor is doing is not okay, in the same way that walking down the street brandishing a loaded gun and pointing it at random people is not okay.

 

[kawtech87]

There are three groups that I don't think should have access to firearms:

1. Violent felons
2. Unsupervised children
3. Those who are mentally deranged.

So, liberals?

 

[Ingomike]

So, liberals?

Sucks that I cannot click both love and laugh from the like menu!

 

[cosermann]

No need to amend it if it's ignored.

 

[.300 dadbod]

View attachment 276940

I honestly don't get it

 

[.300 dadbod]

I'd say most everybody on this site agrees with that take, with the exception of some debate over how to handle certain types of criminals. I happen to agree more with the side that says if you don't trust them with a gun, they should be locked up and not walking the streets, so there really shouldn't be any laws pertaining to felons owning guns, but there are some who disagree.

I would say mental issues is another place where people draw a line. In general, if someone has serious enough mental issues that they have to be treated as a child, and not be given the same rights/responsibilities/liberties as an ordinary adult, and basically treated as a child, I'd say it's pretty non-controversial to also agree that they shouldn't be owning guns, either.

I'm curious, though, if anyone here has any other place they would draw a line? Like say, should private ownership of nukes be banned? If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to start their own private arsenal of nuclear missiles, is that part of their right to keep and bear arms?

Agree 100% - if someone cannot be trusted with a gun, then why were they released in the first place?

I would also say that there is broad enough support that an amendment addressing gun ownership and possession by individuals with certain mental issues such as schizophrenia and psychosis could easily pass with overwhelming consensus.

 

[.300 dadbod]

No need to amend it if it's ignored.

How can this be changed? Can the lawful structure of our government - to include the amendment process - be socialized into the bigger narrative?

Not a trick question. The facts are on our side in black and white and I'm curious what others think.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I honestly don't get it

Urban Dictionary: Glowie

Normally used for the CIA but also used for agencies like the ATF, FBI, etc. Their inability to blend in to the native population's habits, patterns and speech makes them stick out like a sore thumb to the population, hence they "glow in the dark." The most common trappings of government shills...

www.urbandictionary.com