View Full Version : 2nd amendment should be amended?
I know this will provoke a lot of negative remarks.
As a gun owner, I understand my rights to have them, I just think any right should be limited once it
impinges on the right of other folks. I love my guns and also understands the responsibility of owning them.
The 2nd ammendent was written at a different time to suit the circumstances under the guidance of armed militia.. They are referring to "muskets" and didn't mean it to be absolute right. Hey remember the 1st amendment says We have the right to
assemble peacefully!!! We have the right to own guns but the government also has the right to protect it's citizens!!
Instead of right to bear, how about "privilege to own a firearm" if people meet reasonable requirement to own one.
Just a thought! BTW, I own 12 pistols and 3 rifles. I enjoy target shooting.
As a gun owner, I understand my rights to have them, I just think any right should be limited once it
impinges on the right of other folks.
How does the right to keep and bear arms impinge on the rights of others, and which rights are being impinged?
They are referring to "muskets"
Does the First Amendment apply to the internet?
How does the right to keep and bear arms impinge on the rights of others, and which rights are being impinged?
Very well said.
Also, why are those in power so fearful of citizens lawfully possessing and legally using firearms as they have for the 200+ years of our country's existence?
We already have numerous laws on the books regarding misuse of firearms which are commonly ignored by criminals. Bans have been tried and failed. If we really want to solve the problem, maybe other solutions should be considered (unless your primary goal is taking away firearms from citizens).
How does the right to keep and bear arms impinge on the rights of others, and which rights are being impinged?
I can't imagine even one situation where my owning or carrying a firearms for over 30 years has ever infringed (impinged) on anyone else's second amendment rights - or any other of their rights. I don't think it has ever effected anyone I've known, and certainly doesn't effect anyone I don't know.
How about we change it to *require* of each adult citizen of good character ownership of a semi-auto version of the current military rifle, and a handgun, and a sufficient supply of ammunition, and submission of evidence of yearly training, or else a face a yearly tax, similar to the Obamacare tax for not having health insurance?
And for those who cannot afford their own rifle and handgun to meet this obligation, perhaps a program like the ObamaPhone deal, or a tax credit, can be worked out to provide suitable equipment.
How about we change it to *require* of each adult citizen of good character ownership of a semi-auto version of the current military rifle, and a handgun, and a sufficient supply of ammunition, and submission of evidence of yearly training, or else a face a yearly tax, similar to the Obamacare tax for not having health insurance?
And for those who cannot afford their own rifle and handgun to meet this obligation, perhaps a program like the ObamaPhone deal, or a tax credit, can be worked out to provide suitable equipment.Then we'd be Switzerland! Isn't the legal policy there that every household (at least with a male of a certain age) MUST have a gun? One which is issued by the Swiss government? With ammo? They even get to keep their firearms after their required reserve military time is up (with full-autos converted to semi-autos) forever. And of course Switzerland has one of the lowest death by firearms statistics in the world - even with nearly every household owning firearms.
We have the right to own guns but the government also has the right to protect it's citizens!!The government has no rights as such. Only certain powers and obligations we assign it through the constitution.
... perhaps a program like the ObamaPhone deal, or a tax credit, can be worked out to provide suitable equipment.
Although I know you probably meant this as slang, I think the correct term is Lifeline plan which was started in the 1980s under President Reagan. Should we refer to this as the ReaganPhone deal?
Although I know you probably meant this as slang, I think the correct term is Lifeline plan which was started in the 1980s under President Reagan. Should we refer to this as the ReaganPhone deal?
Call it whatever you want, cell phones don't work where I live so I am unaware of these little nuances.
Although I know you probably meant this as slang, I think the correct term is Lifeline plan which was started in the 1980s under President Reagan. Should we refer to this as the ReaganPhone deal?
It's certainly slang, but it's also the preferred name for the program according to the folks who benefit from it. My brother-in-law is on his 3rd Obamaphone after "losing" the first two. He says that the cell phones and EBT cards are the hottest barter items among his friends with the going rate for a phone being 4 doses of heroin and the rate to "rent" EBT cards at $0.50 on the dollar.
They might have started subsidizing phones in the 80s, but can you show me where they were handing out cellphones in Reagan's days? Seems unlikely
http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/cellphone_design/dkmb86g_487pr55s2hc_b.jpg
Birchwood
1-19-13, 10:56am
How does the right to keep and bear arms impinge on the rights of others, and which rights are being impinged?
OK, Alan, the right to keep and bear arms by itself does not impinge on the rights of others, but once it is used to shoot somebody in a murder, robbery etc, and not in self defense, then it impinges or violate the right of others. The right of assembly or to exist in a free society is thus impinge upon, and the government has the right or obligation to protect it's citizens.
Similar analogy.
We have the privilege to drive a car, but if we drive it 100 mph in a 65mph HW we cause potential harm,& will be fined.
I have a right to own a camera with all the zoom lenses, but if I point it to somebody's bedroom, I violate the right of privacy.
More on the ReaganPhone, aka Lifeline program:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
OK, Alan, the right to keep and bear arms by itself does not impinge on the rights of others, but once it is used to shoot somebody in a murder, robbery etc, and not in self defense, then it impinges or violate the right of others. The right of assembly or to exist in a free society is thus impinge upon, and the government has the right or obligation to protect it's citizens.
Similar analogy.
We have the privilege to drive a car, but if we drive it 100 mph in a 65mph HW we cause potential harm,& will be fined.
I have a right to own a camera with all the zoom lenses, but if I point it to somebody's bedroom, I violate the right of privacy.
Do you advocate restricting the possession of cars or cameras in order to prevent those possible actions?
Birchwood
1-19-13, 11:07am
Do you advocate restricting the possession of cars or cameras in order to prevent those possible actions?
No, just want to point out anything we have can be abused to infringe onthe rights of others. I don't mean to restrict,but rules and laws matter forthe common good. BTW I have pistols and rifles than most people.
No, just want to point out anything we have can be abused to infringe onthe rights of others. I don't mean to restrict,but rules and laws matter forthe common good. BTW I have pistols and rifles than most people.
We have a wide variety of laws regarding weapons and their use, along with laws against violence (assault, murder, etc.,).
What changes would you make to the 2nd amendment and what effect would those changes have on others rights not to be the victim of violence.
We have the privilege to drive a car, but if we drive it 100 mph in a 65mph HW we cause potential harm,& will be fined.
Do you advocate restricting the possession of cars or cameras in order to prevent those possible actions?
No, just want to point out anything we have can be abused to infringe onthe rights of others.
Ok, so you aren't proposing any restrictions on anything, but a system of penalties that can be administered if someone uses ANY device or tool to inflict harm upon or violate the rights of others? If such a system was actually enforced it might just work!
Little off topic but according to the Modest Bee article today talk of more fire arms control is good for business. 100 percent price in a month. Now that is real inflation.
"Moe said his biggest seller has been the Smith and Wesson M&P rifle, which last month sold for $649 and is now $1,300."
Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/01/18/2539178/national-gun-control-push-boosting.html#storylink=cpy
Ok, so you aren't proposing any restrictions on anything, but a system of penalties that can be administered if someone uses ANY device or tool to inflict harm upon or violate the rights of others? If such a system was actually enforced it might just work!Hmmm.... a system that actually creates laws to protect people if they are harmed by the use of ANY device or tool to cause that harm? One that not only has a way to enforce those laws, but can penalize people who break them? Seems I heard of a system like that somewhere. I believe it was called "The U.S. Legal System" or maybe it was "U.S. Penal Code" even "The Civil and Criminal Justice Systems". Seems it's already in place in many places :-)! I bet that system will work just as well on people who cause harm to other's using a firearm as well as it does if using a knife, a car, a camera, Ms. Scarlett's lead pipe and Colonel Mustard's wrench :-)! But then it's so much easier to just ban the firearm, the knife, the car, the camera, the lead pipe and the wrench from everyone in the country It's the only way we can keep us safe.
Birchwood
1-20-13, 12:03pm
We have a wide variety of laws regarding weapons and their use, along with laws against violence (assault, murder, etc.,).
What changes would you make to the 2nd amendment and what effect would those changes have on others rights not to be the victim of violence.
i know this is farfetched,and will not happen but these are possible changes.
We have the right to keep and own guns and firearms for the purpose of home defense, personal protection, and
sports shooting, if we pass the "mandatory" background check and a statement from our physicians stating that we are free mental illness.(no exceptions).
Everybody(who wish to own) should have a training in gun safety, maintenance and it's use.
Private sell(person to person) should require the same background check.(tough to do).
Selling a gun to a unauthorized user is subject to severe penalty!
I don't think the above changes have any affect on other's right not to be victims. Law abiding citizens are still allowed to acquire and use them in a responsible manner.
i know this is farfetched,and will not happen but these are possible changes.
We have the right to keep and own guns and firearms for the purpose of home defense, personal protection, and
sports shooting, if we pass the "mandatory" background check and a statement from our physicians stating that we are free mental illness.(no exceptions).
Everybody(who wish to own) should have a training in gun safety, maintenance and it's use.
Private sell(person to person) should require the same background check.(tough to do).
Selling a gun to a unauthorized user is subject to severe penalty!
I don't think the above changes have any affect on other's right not to be victims. Law abiding citizens are still allowed to acquire and use them in a responsible manner.
So, since the subject of your thread is the amendment of the constitution, is that a necessary part of those goals?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.