The 2nd Amendment Has Never Been Amended

[BiscuitsandGravy]

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

Sometimes these threads can cause spirited dialog which will on occasion cause a mod to lock the thread...

 

[BJHay]

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

A counter argument is that the recidivism rate for violent felons is around 60% where the conviction rate for the general public is less than 1% There is variance in the data by source but you get the point.

Yes, there are a lot of people with prior convictions that should be allowed to posses and can't. That should be fixed but that notwithstanding why would we allow a person with a 60% chance of committing violence have a firearm? We can say they should have been locked up longer or we need better filters for approving early release but that isn't the case today. This would be a very tough sell to the voting public.

Of course many practical people understand that it doesn't matter. Violent felons will find a way to get access to a firearm but that isn't a persuasive argument.

 

[HHollow]

The ID standard for in person voting should be the same for firearms purchases. The left cried for years that ID requirements might hinder voting and would disproportionately affect the poor. Since 2A is not a second class right then the same arguments should serve.

If a patrol cop is able (or needs) to carry a certain type of weapon then the citizens should also be able to have it.

 

[WebSnyper]

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.

I'm not interested in cracking open the constitution for any more amendments. I don't see that going our way. That said, we should continue to strike down the unconstitutional laws out there now, and there should be challenges up front on the constitutional nature of laws being passed. It's ridiculous that we have to claw back rights and go through years of process to get back our rights when unconstitutional laws are passed or "rules" put in place by congress or even worse by agencies with no constitutional standing to do so.

 

[dak109]

Had numerous conversations with a former coworker years ago about this. He (as do a lot of others) get wound up on shall not be infringed. I made the statement about “arms” is equal to what the government has. He was like “damn, you’re right”.
The British didn’t March on Lexington and Concord to confiscate muskets and rifles. Their intention was to confiscate artillery.

 

[Bugzilla]

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.




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?

And hot red heads!

 

[Sigblitz]

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.

Public servants don't have power over other citizens. Some just don't listen.

 

[Sigblitz]

How can this be changed?

This is also addressed in the constitution. It's not going to happen over a weak .223 weeble wabble launcher or 2 inches of barrel.

 

[.300 dadbod]

A counter argument is that the recidivism rate for violent felons is around 60% where the conviction rate for the general public is less than 1% There is variance in the data by source but you get the point.

Yes, there are a lot of people with prior convictions that should be allowed to posses and can't. That should be fixed but that notwithstanding why would we allow a person with a 60% chance of committing violence have a firearm? We can say they should have been locked up longer or we need better filters for approving early release but that isn't the case today. This would be a very tough sell to the voting public.

Of course many practical people understand that it doesn't matter. Violent felons will find a way to get access to a firearm but that isn't a persuasive argument.

Recidivism rate info is very interesting...

Yes, a tough sell to the public indeed. By extension, shouldn't it be easy to sell the idea of properly classifying prohibited persons through the amendment process?

 

[Kurr]

Yes, a tough sell to the public indeed. By extension, shouldn't it be easy to sell the idea of properly classifying prohibited persons through the amendment process?

If the Citizenry were properly armed and trained, would there be that many convicted violent felons around to do the recidivism?

 

[BigRed]

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

But these are just range toys and serve no practical purpose. Thus, it's not a big deal. Read it here on ingo.

 

[manifest destiny]

Crazies not allowed to possess guns seems reasonable. But what if they're cured via therapy? Would that be akin to felons getting full rights restored once free? How easy might it be for anti-gunners employed by .gov to get more and more people classified as too crazy for guns? So many nuances once looking at individual cases. If recidivism rate is a concern, why release them, after all they are most likely to once again harm the public. If good enough for release, good enough for full rights. The 2a has been so damaged that society is debating grips, braces, thumbholes and round counts. There's been no official amendments to the 2a, but it's surely been changed from it's original intent.

 

[WebSnyper]

Recidivism rate info is very interesting...

Yes, a tough sell to the public indeed. By extension, shouldn't it be easy to sell the idea of properly classifying prohibited persons through the amendment process?

Why would we want an infringement of any kind put into an amendment to the constitution? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[.300 dadbod]

Why would we want an infringement of any kind put into an amendment to the constitution? Is that what you are suggesting?

Absolutely not. I suppose other than to rant, my original intent was that the narrative surrounding legislative powers has been hijacked (republicans guilty as well) and most Americans have been duped into believing as much.

I would have a lot less wind in my sails had 2/3 congress and 3/4 states enacted the equivalent of the NFA or GCA through the amendment process. Having said that, no way in hell that would have been possible in '34 or '68 and still not possible today.

Even here on INGO, I dare say 3/4 members would be fine with an amendment defining prohibited persons as murderers and rapists and an amendment banning civilian possesion of explosive ordnance if all current unconstitutional laws were to magically go away.

I would rather hear talking heads and congress critters fret over how the 2A needs amended or repealed (knowing it will never happen) than to hear how they will enact an AWB if they gain control of house/senate.

 

[Sigblitz]

Every little bite is a huge deal, and we're gaining ground in some areas. The infringement rules are not in line with the Constitution.

I see the rules as infringement. Others will argue we can still have flintlocks, so how are our rights infringed? It's about the balance of power. Citizens shall not be inferiorly armed against their government. Period. Full stop.

 

[KLB]

Of course many practical people understand that it doesn't matter. Violent felons will find a way to get access to a firearm but that isn't a persuasive argument.

Of course it is. Once again you are punishing people for what others may do. You aren't stopping anyone from possessing a gun, let alone from using one to commit a crime. You are merely punishing that 40% that will never commit another crime.

 

[Sigblitz]

 

[PRasko]

 

[Denny347]

But these are just range toys and serve no practical purpose. Thus, it's not a big deal. Read it here on ingo.

For much, if not most, of gun owners in America, this is correct. It's a tool they have no intention to ever use outside a range.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Crazies not allowed to possess guns seems reasonable. But what if they're cured via therapy? Would that be akin to felons getting full rights restored once free? How easy might it be for anti-gunners employed by .gov to get more and more people classified as too crazy for guns? So many nuances once looking at individual cases. If recidivism rate is a concern, why release them, after all they are most likely to once again harm the public. If good enough for release, good enough for full rights. The 2a has been so damaged that society is debating grips, braces, thumbholes and round counts. There's been no official amendments to the 2a, but it's surely been changed from it's original intent.

So who gets to decide who the crazies are?

That's the issue. Give them a foot in the door and you lose rights, That's how the govt works.