One more simple gun question: Check in if you support a repealing of amendment two

[mudesi]

*raises hand*

I think it needs to go completely.

It's time for America to join the rest of the civilized world, on this and dozens of other issues. You can't spell "progressive" without "progress".



**************************************************************
ON EDIT
**************************************************************

CNN has JUST reported 9 people killed in Omaha, Nebraska. Not a half hour after I posted this thread.

Sad.

[Perry Logan]

1. Absolutely. America needs to catch up with the civilized world.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudesi]

5. It's outdated, it makes no sense, and it needs to go

Sorry.

And it's being used by conservatives and special interest groups (NRA) to spread propaganda and divide the nation.

[karlrschneider]

40. Okay, let's dump the whole Bill of Rights since they all seem to be observed mainly

in the breach. :eyes:
I mean, if you've already been fucked it's a little late to demand a rubber, eh?

[Union Label]

97. How ironic that I started a thread two days ago that dealt with this

And then the day after I posted this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2402765 the Omaha shooting happened. I hope all of the assault weapon lovers can sleep with this, their blood is on your hands!

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

129. If you're going to throw around wild accusations, at least use correct terms.

An 'assault weapon' as defined by the ban, wasn't all that different from most guns. It had scary vertical foregrips and *gasp* maybe it was even bayonet compatible. The ban didn't do anything useful about fully automatic weapons, which is the main concern rational people have. The Nebraska shooting would have been completely unaffected by the 'assault weapons' ban, because it is believed he used a weapon with nothing terribly special about it. It was a normal semi-automatic rifle.

I think that we can both agree that fully automatic firearms should not be legal for any purpose. But the complete nullification of the second amendment? I think not.

So I'm afraid your statement is null. I cannot think of anyone who is an 'assault weapon' lover (Who the hell would love a gun just because of vertical grips?), but most of all, there was no 'assault weapon' in the Nebraska shooting.

So therefore you are calling a pox upon an incredibly small group of people, who's preference in weapons (as strange as they might be) have absolutely nothing to do with the shooting for which you blame them. I must admit that I fail to understand your logic here, however I will venture a guess and assume that you simply hate guns? While such an assumption may possibly be incorrect, this thesis I have put forth between us would do quite well in explaining the seemingly confounding and inexplicable behavior that you are exhibiting. So, I may go as far as to say that there is no logic to be found in any discourse where emotions run so veritably high. However, such a thought I would happily remove from my mind if you were willing to place further correspondence upon this board that demonstrates otherwise.

In other words, if you're going to throw around accusations like that, you better be willing to back it up when you're called.

[krispos42]

100. It's also being used by liberals and special interest groups to spread propaganda...

and divide the nation. The Violence Policy Center come to mind.

Remember, it was the Brady group, with the help of the DLC, who made the term "assault weapon" appear about fifteen-twenty years ago and promptly started a movement to ban them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136200

Until they made it an issue, it wasn't dividing the nation at all. And unlike issues like abortion, woman's sufferage, civil rights, and gay marriage, the issue that the Brady people were harping on did not increase the rights of Americans, but decreased them.

[Union Label]

101. And "fifteen-twenty years ago"

I don't remember hearing about mass killings with these do you?

[BurningDog]

110. Hard to hear about them if a classification for them didn't exist.

Charles Whitman managed to kill 14 people and wound 30 others in the "pre-assault weapon" era.

It seems that undiagnosed/mis-treated mental illness is the common factor in almost all mass murders, not the availability of a certain type of weapon.

[krispos42]

123. Even before then, how often did it happen?

At Virginia Tech the weapons were by no definition "assault weapons". Cho had a pair of regular pistols. That still, of course, made major national headlines.

I fear that his had become an ingrains societal pattern that will take several generations to fade. :-(

[ThomWV]

3. Absolutly not - it is no more or less our right than those granted by the other 9

You do not get to decide which of my right I get to keep and which you will take away from me.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

20. I Agree: The second amendment is there for when

King George decides the rest are just suggestions..

[earthside]

26. Agree - No.

I watched 'Bowling for Columbine' again this past weekend and it reminded me that the big problem is not the guns, it is the fear and anger in this country.

It is important to stand by our Bill of Rights -- that means flag burning is protected speech, that means the right control one's own body is protected by the right to privacy. So, it means that I can chose to protect my family, if it is ever necessary, with a hand gun. If the idea of repealing rights some groups don't like gains currency, then you'll see prayer in schools, abortion outlawed, political prisons and a whole host of other rights taken away and replaced by Christo-fascist laws.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Nah.

That's like repealing the first amendment so you can ban video games.

Because that's the source of random shootings, right?

[theredpen]

6. Just imagine the next day...

As Bush's goons go out and arrest every brown person who might have a gun.

Yeah, let's strip a civil right from the people and see how little the Republicans abuse their new power.

[qdemn7]

7. Absolutely not!

For no other reason to oppose the mindset of people who think the private ownership of guns should be banned.

[Matariki]

8. No. Nor is it a good idea to advocate selective gutting of The Constitution.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Like the selection of Pres. and Vice Pres as a slate? The direct election of Senators?

Remember, the original purpose of separate ballots for President and Vice President was to give the chief rival of the Chief Executive the most powerful position in Congress, by making him President of the Senate (see Article II, Section 1, para. 3.) This was to create yet another check on the power of the Executive Branch. The 12th Amendment gutted that provision of the Constitution.

Likewise, the appointment of Senators by state Legislators (Article I, Section 3, para. 1) was specifically designed to distance Senators from popular will and current fashions in politics, allowing them to act with greater regard for the needs of the country. The 17th Amendment gutted that provision of the Constitution.

:evilgrin:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

24. And is it good we got rid of that?

"Remember, the original purpose of separate ballots for President and Vice President was to give the chief rival of the Chief Executive the most powerful position in Congress, by making him President of the Senate"

If we had that in place Gore and Kerry would have been the tie breakers in the last two terms. Even if Bush managed to steal the election he would not have had his sith lord in the white house with him, acting as a tie breaking vote and pushing policy.. I deplore that change as I would deplore eliminating the second..

[jberryhill]

88. So, we will put you in the column for "in favor of selectively gutting the Constitution"

...since you would like to eliminate the Constitutionally prescribed process for amending the Constitution.

Yes?

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. I think it needs constitutional clarification rather than repeal

I would much rather see it replaced rather than outright repealed. We need clarity on how the two seemingly disjoined clauses are supposed to work together.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

25. Thats what the SUP Court is for..

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Correct, but....

The fact that the argument still rages on with so much vitriol on both sides indicates that there still remains a great deal of confusion on the matter. Amending the Second Amendment to reflect Court opinion would go a long way towards bringing peace.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. There will alwys be arguments over this

You will never eliminate the vitrol because some think

1) Nobody but the government should have access to firearms

and others think

2) Every kook in the world is entitled a glock

--

Personally I'm all for massive and detailed background checks but Im not for the govt keeping the data after the check is done (kinda weird huh?). But a right is not meant to be defined in as much detail as a law that kills the concept of a living document..

[dysfunctional press]

31. and they are scheduled to do some clarifying of it next year- hopefully

over a washington dc gun ban case.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

38. They should just make DC a state and get this over with...

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. That would require selective gutting of the Constitution

The Congress shall have power ... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; ...

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8

Added: This clause was to prevent any one state from claiming primacy over all other states by virtue of being home to the nation's capital. Even today, in a gutted republic where states have almost no sovereign power, granting statehood to the District of Columbia would make it by far the most powerful of the states, as it would have three voting members of Congress (and consequently three electoral votes) and far fewer citizens than what is now the least populous state.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

48. If you can not see the difference between adding DC as a state

And messing with fundamental rights

You're one of the most obtuse people Ive ever met (intentionally or not)

[TechBear_Seattle]

86. You are the one who brought up DC statehood

Don't blame me for discussing it further. :hi:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

87. I dont think adding DC is radical

It in no way changes a persons individual liberties nor does it change the way our government functions (any more than say adding the territory of Puerto Rico)

[Goblinmonger]

112. "Guts the Constitution" though, don't it? n/t

[donheld]

10. Absolutely NOT

Do you really want all guns etc in the hands of right wingers. We may need our guns to take our country back.

[aikoaiko]

11. NO.

[MercutioATC]

12. Sure! We'll just start with the 1st Amendment......

....and work our way through them!

Repeal 'em all! We don't need rights, the government will protect us.


:eyes:

[Selatius]

13. Repealing one of the original 10 Amendments is a deal-breaker.

Without it, the Union could disintegrate over the issue.

[maxsolomon]

14. first, lets' define UP a "well-regulated militia"

from, basically, "any male with a gun", to something with some actual REGULATION.

for instance: actually stop the friggin' nutcases from getting guns, a la virginia tech. the mentally ill aren't generally well-regulated.

[negativenihil]

15. Hell no.

Once you start gutting the bill of rights - where do you stop?

Any other rights you'd like to take from me? :P

[Crunchy Frog]

16. I think I'm with you.

The cost is just too high, and I can't see gun ownership as an integral part of our freedoms.

I don't see it ever happening in this country, though. There are ALOT of ways in which I don't think we're ever going to join the civilized world.

[krispos42]

103. That attitude isn't helping

I don't see it ever happening in this country, though. There are ALOT of ways in which I don't think we're ever going to join the civilized world.

The gun issue has been turned into a cultural issue. See, a civilized society can only be civilized if it's peaceful, and it can only be peaceful if violence is shunned. If you are not for shunning all aspects of violence, including it's trappings in video games, hunting, movies, and firearm ownership, then you are an impediment to civilization. You're a "hick", a "rube", a "redneck". Right?

Of course, what you may not realize is that talking about the Second Amendment that way, you start sounding like the Republicans about, say, habeas corpus. Or the Fourth Amendment. "The cost is just too high in the post-9/11 world, and we can't be free with terrorists running around in our country."

The fallacy here is that gun control equals crime control, and that eliminating guns will somehow save lives.

Recent evidence indicates that this does not happen.

[Crunchy Frog]

106. I have my opinion, you have yours.

I'm not advocating that anyone else adopt my opinion, I'm just stating it, as was asked for in the OP. I doubt that either of us is going to change the other's opinion on this matter.

I've never heard of a death being traced to habeas corpus before. Got any examples?

[krispos42]

122. Examples are classified

What happens in Gitmo, stays in Gitmo, as we all know well. :-) :-(

But more seriously, how many people in this country are dead because the police could not legally lock up some abusive husband or boyfriend up just because the cops had a gut feeling? How many are dead because a search was illegal and critical evidence discarded, setting a blatantly guilty person free? How many blacks and Latinos are dead because hate groups are allowed to freely discuss, refine, and promote their vile opinions on race to the point of lynchings, drive-bys, and arson?

Rights cost lives. No rights cost more lives, though, so we're doing the best we can.



What I'm trying to convey is that the problem is not violence in and of itself, it is aggression. Our civilized society, and civilized societies throughout history, have used controlled violence to maintain that civilization. The military protects us from threats without, and the police protects us from threats within. And they do that, in part, by using violence and the threat of violence to stop those that seek to prey upon the innocent.

So we need violence. Violence to protect the innocent. What we don't need is reckless criminal aggression. Part of being civilized is seeking and using methods beyond the base, raw, selfish emotions, the ones that say "ram the sonuvabitch that cut me off!" or "deck the guy that stole my stapler again!" And maybe we don't do that as well as other nations do.

By demonizing all violence, not just aggression, we make ourselves more pacifist and sensitive to aggression, inviting criminals to rob and plunder us because we're becoming softer and easier targets.

There are other factors, as well, of course. Poverty, education, drug use, the "war" on drugs, etc., contribute to crime as well in very significant ways.

[NeedleCast]

17. No

Doesn't look like your idea is getting much support.

[AlCzervik]

18. is it progress to take away someones constitutional right?

how about we work on trying to ensure people have equal rights?

[killbotfactory]

21. No way.

The powers we would have to grant law enforcement to get guns off our streets would further erode all our other rights. You can't just ban certain guns and expect miracles, it has to be part of a much larger more comprehensive strategy, otherwise the "drug war" will turn into the "drug and arms" war. It will make our shitty situation much, much worse.

[mitchum]

22. You also can't spell "stupid" without "u"

[IA_Seth]

118. lol, that about sums this post up. n/t

[Sanctified]

23. Sorry but when they come to send me to Camp Bush the Re-Education Camp

I want to take out as many of those mutherfuckers as possible and I won't be able to do it with a knife or a bat.

[CTyankee]

58. Really? What makes you think they couldn't go after you with an armored tank?

Truly, I understand your feeling of resistance, but I just wonder if you would not be better off devoting more energy and effort to a political solution of our problems. You can't match the firepower of the federal government, but you can work for change within political parties in our government. Otherwise, you'd be better off in another country, as an emigre. I realize that that is severe remedy, but better that than a doomed, if dramatic and romantic, fantasy about resisting tyranny when it comes in helicopters, tanks and vast fire power.

Just my musings here...

[dysfunctional press]

27. NEVER- at this point it makes about as much sense as prohibition of alcohol did.

and the effect on society would probably be similar.

[sandnsea]

29. Thanks for validating the 'gun grabber' talking points

That's really helpful in getting reasonable gun regulation.

[mudesi]

39. What about all the other countries on Earth without a "right" to bear arms?

It's not a talking point, it's a reality.

Joining the rest of the world on issues that have already been resolved is the very definition of being a progressive. It includes joining them on climate change and universal health care as well, but those are two entirely different threads.

[sandnsea]

43. You live in THIS country

Why in the world would you choose to fuel one of the biggest wedge issues there is. Why??? Repealing one amendment just opens the door to repealing others, that are left at least. And what's really goofy, it isn't even necessary. The problem is in our cultural dog eat dog psyche, not the constitution.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

50. Were those nations to suddenly grant the right to bear arms

would it be ok for us to keep it? sheesh...

We are our own people and we should protect what rights we deem fit without regard for what cherry picked nations would have.

For every freedom loving nation you can point to who ban Guns I can point to a China/Vietnam (or at the risk of imposing Goodwin) Germany under the National Socialist party.

[PVnRT]

68. So, supporting gun ownership denies you access to the "progressive" club

Got any other requirements for us? We want to make sure that we are ideologically pure.

Progressive means wanting to move society forward; it has nothing to do with "joining the rest of the world," unless that just happens to be a coincidence.

[PVnRT]

72. Since you're stalled on this talking point

Please throw out some countries that completely ban citizens from owning firearms. We'll wait.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

30. This Should be a Poll

[AndyA]

32. I don't know if repealing the second amendment is the way to go,

but something *MUST* be done about all the idiots out running around with guns. Not everyone should be entitled to have a gun, some people aren't mentally capable of having them, some aren't responsible enough to have them, and others don't have the temperament to own a gun.

The right for innocent people to live their lives exceeds that of some nutbag to have a gun.

[Ilsa]

33. No. nt

[CTyankee]

34. Uh oh spaghetti-O's

Are you gonna get it! We seem to have lots of DUers who love their guns and truly believe in their protective qualities against the force of the State. I say to them "good luck". To you I say "dream on."

That said, I really do get your drift and I agree about the militia thing. There was a very real danger in the late 1700s, when our founders experience with standing armies of the central government were very bad things for individual rights. Now, I just wish the gun lovers would devote more energy to building political muscle than to their gun cache...

[RamboLiberal]

35. No way - there are millions of us who have and enjoy guns

and the shooting sports. I'm sick of the repeal the 2nd amendment and the gun banners coming out every time we have one nutcase go on one of these rampages.

So you ban guns, the next nutcase can mow people down with his car, or strap an explosive to his body, or go in with a can of flammable liquid. The nutcases will always find a way.

[karlrschneider]

42. Yeah, thank Gawd it's illegal to rent trucks or buy fertilizer!

:eyes:

[IronLionZion]

92. or fly in airplanes, or send mail, drive a car, have kitchen knives, etc.

I for one am glad that all of us people are restrained in straitjackets and heavily sedated.

I would put a sarcasm smiley, but ... if people need that then we really are doomed as a civilization.

[B Calm]

37. Hell NO! The right to own a gun is a very liberal idea!

Democrats = Personal liberty

[Occam Bandage]

44. Sure, sorta. I don't support criminalizing guns, but I do support interpreting it

a state right and not an individual right.

[benEzra]

45. No. (n/t)

[madrchsod]

46. no-but

regulation of permits,background checks, regulation of gun show sales,
and the regulation of gun manufactures and dealers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. I agree but I doubt it would pass

Maybe we should promote an amendment guaranteeing all have the right to a bullet proof vest.

[slackmaster]

49. You're chances of doing that are about the same as for eliminating the Electoral College

Slim to none, and Slim just left town on the last stagecoach.

We who own and use firearms lawfully see a disconnect between our exercise of our rights, and a violent criminal's misuse of weapons.

We should work together to find ways of addressing the root causes of violence. Attacking the instrument is not likely to solve the problem.

[Prophet 451]

51. No

Re-word or clarify it, certainly but not repeal.

[xchrom]

52. me. -- i will always vote for gun control. repealing the 2 is a good idea. nt

[MadHound]

53. No, I don't support such a repeal

I support the right to bear arms, with reasonable regulation and restrictions. However I do support the repeal of all CCW laws, and Castle Doctrine laws in this country. Nothing but vigilante justice can emerge from those two.

[polichick]

54. Not sure of the best way to change it but America's GUN & GOD culture is sickening...

I don't think the founding fathers meant that every bozo in the land should own a gun. The civilized world is leaving us far, far behind in the dust of our own ashes.

[Q3JR4]

55. 8 years ago I would have agreed with you.

Since then, however, I've found comfort in the fact that our government must keep a close eye on what it does in our names least we get fed up and come knocking.

I see the 2nd amendment right to own guns as another check on an abusive, overbearing, and destructive government. I also take comfort in knowing that before this nations slides completely into dictatorship, we the people can weigh in even if we no longer have the right to vote.

Q3JR4.

[Recursion]

56. Forbid it, almighty God

The day we repeal the 2nd Amendment is the day the 2nd American Civil War starts. I'd prefer to avoid that.

[-..__...]

57. Not just no, but HELL no!

In fact... quite the opposite.

Should the SCOTUS rule in the Heller case that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a collective one, it will rightfully go down as one of the most important affirmations of a protected right since Brown v. Board of education and Roe v. Wade.

The immediate effect will be very limited, but at least it will give the gun owning community the spring board it needs and deserves to begin the process of repealing some of the more egregious and restrictive local and state gun control laws (beginning with the Chicago handgun ban).

Hopefully, any future gun control cases brought to the forefront will be with the goal that the 2nd amendment be incorporated with the 14th amendment and put to rest all this ban nonsense and talk of an abridgment of a Constitutional right.

[and-justice-for-all]

59. I agree....repeal is needed.

With the acception of Law Enforcement.

[Wcross]

61. Why would law enforcement need guns?

Nobody would have a gun so I can't understand why the police would need them. :sarcasm:

Google has a toolbar that has a free spell checker, it is a great help when you try to spell exception as acception.:bounce:

[and-justice-for-all]

85. "Google has a toolbar that has a free spell checker..."

:eyes:

[The Straight Story]

102. Firefox has it built in - so when you type in message box it checks as ya type

:)

[Wcross]

107. I wood bee lost wifout a speel cheecker!

I tells yuo wat, my speeling would be terryball witout it.

[Goblinmonger]

115. Too bad that tool bar can't tell you

that your second sentence is a comma splice. Add a conjunction or change the comma to a period or a semi-colon. Sheesh.

And it should tell you that you need a comma between "gun" and "so" in the first sentence.

I'm never shocked that the spell patrol usually has some horrible grammar/punctuation offenses.

[Wcross]

121. I am hoping they will include that in the future.

For now I am glad I am not misspelling words. Believe me, if I can use a spell checker anyone can (& should).

[slackmaster]

64. There's always that

OK for government to have all the power it wants, but not the people.

:argh:

[Pale Blue Dot]

60. I would support it, but it isn't even in my top ten right now.

...either of priorities or possibilities.

[beevul]

62. HELL NO!! N/T

[Wcross]

63. Revoking a citizens rights is "Progress"?

I will not give up my rights.

[-..__...]

65. It's progress if it takes place in a dicatorship or facist government.

Can't let the peons and rabble be armed... no, no, no we can't be having any of that in a "progressive" or "civilized" community.

[PVnRT]

70. Yes, of course

Get with the program, prole.

[PVnRT]

66. Will you stop your incessant fucking trolling?

You're making more of the guns issue than Republicans are.

[mudesi]

67. Please

9 more innocent people lost their lives today thanks to America's lax gun laws.

This "gun issue" is life and death. The rest of the civilized world is light years ahead on this. Just like they are on health care and the environment and God knows how many more things America is lagging in thanks to the conservative regressive policies that so many here on DU, an apparent gathering place for progressives, seem to support.

[PVnRT]

69. Horseshit

Quit politicizing people's deaths. Or is that one of your "progressive attributes" now? Making political hay out of anything you can?

Regressive means moving backwards. Please explain how gun laws are "moving backwards."

[mudesi]

71. No, just stating the facts

Some people apparently can't handle the truth.

[PVnRT]

73. Really? You know how the shooter got the gun?

Please let us all know your inside information.

[mudesi]

74. I'm tired of this

I'll be back in the near future when this happens again.

I'm too sick and tired of trying to convince you people of how wrong you are right now.

For crying out loud. I literally saw it reported minutes after I posted this thread.

[PVnRT]

75. "I can't back up my arguments, so I'm going away"

Buh-bye

[mudesi]

76. Bye

See you next time when more people die.

[PVnRT]

77. Don't let your arms get tired up on that cross, Cochese (n/t)

[mudesi]

80. .

[Goblinmonger]

116. Not my fight, here, I guess,

but I hope you do realize the irony of telling someone to "Quit politicizing people's deaths" on DU. Do you say that when anyone talks about the number of soldiers that die being a reason to get out of the war?

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. *raises hand* I hate guns. n/t

[NeedleCast]

79. Re; Your edit

Lynyrd, let me ask you this. Do you think further gun bans would have stopped what happened today? Do you honestly believe that someone both willing and capable to commit this sort of brutal massacre would be stopped by gun bans? Do you think he's be sitting on his couch right now going "I'd like to go commit a horrible massacre, but I don't have any guns!"

People who wish to commit violent crimes will find a way to commit violent crimes regardless of the tools they have access to.

[mudesi]

81. YES, for God's sake

Stricter gun laws would have prevented this, just like they prevent these things from happening in other countries. It's a fact, not an opinion. Ignore it if you want to.

[NeedleCast]

84. We have a lot more guns

but that's beside the point. One of my roommates just got back from visiting England and Ireland. She says that England is now talking about regulating knives because they're having a big issue with stabbings.

I think it is foolish to assume that banning something that already exists in abundance will somehow stop it. Much like banning alcohol worked so well for us in the twenties. Of course, all it really did was drive it underground, vastly expand the influence and wealth of organized crime (the mob) and add to the alure of drinking for many people.

Moreover, how do you plan to collect the millions of guns in the US? Do you think gun owners will happily go to the nearest police station and hand over their guns for a pat on the ass? You want to see gun crime rise? Repeal the 2nd amendment. I promise that'll do it. That collective thunk you hear will be 90% of the police force in the country going "uhhhh, I don't think so" when their sergeants and captains tell them they're going go on a gun sweep in Richmond, VA. Or Dallas, TX. Or Syracuse, NY. Or anywhere else in the country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Sure. But I'd be happy to settle for registration and recording of all guns purchases.

But, I have my doubts that 'Murka will ever become civilized.



"America is the first country to have gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization." - Oscar Wilde

[Redneck Socialist]

83. No, and...

pass me some :popcorn:

[Burma Jones]

89. Nope, Keep the Second Amendment

and make sure EVERYONE has the right to all 1789 style firearms they want.

Seriously, this is America and we get to have Guns - period. The Germans still get to go as fast as they want on stretches of the Autobahn and they ain't giving that up.

[Thothmes]

128. Lets do that

While we are at it, restrict the first amendment to oral speech and printed words. No need for 1st amendment protection on TV, Radio, internet, these things didn't exist in 1789 and therefor should not be covered by the 1st amendment.

[Burma Jones]

130. I was being facetious...........

[gaspee]

90. wow

Awful lot of charlton heston wannabe's on DU. Forgot about that since the last shooting.

Anyone read about the 7 year old girl who took 7 bullets to save her mom from her ex-boyfriend? Good thing he had that gun, huh? Good thing he could defend himself from the police state and the re-education camps.

Whew, I feel safe knowing I can defend myself if SWAT shows up at my door!

I betcha that little girl feels safe, too.

Fuckin rambo wannabes

[Marrah_G]

94. If someone wants to kill someone else, lack of a gun is not going to stop it.

[IronLionZion]

91. Why not just outlaw murder?

Then people will stop doing it because criminals obey laws. :sarcasm:

The entire bill of rights are crucial to our freedom, every last one of them. Perhaps we should outlaw trolling by freepers? Here's a delightfully freepish idea: Let's allow our neocon president choose which rights to repeal?

Since you seem to have forgotten, I want to remind you that it is, was, and always will be (hopefully) illegal to murder someone. No matter how many laws you pass, laws you enforce, rights you repeal, or guns you grab, people will kill each other. There's a very serious problem with the violent attitudes of humans in general and Americans in particular, but I assure you guns are not it.

[philly_bob]

93. No. BUT apply the "well-ordered militia" part of the amendment. /nt

[Marrah_G]

95. I support the keeping of all my rights

Including owning a gun if I so choose to.

[Beausoir]

96. Nobody needs a gun.

[slackmaster]

98. Thanks but I don't need for you or anyone else to tell me what I need

:hi:

[951-Riverside]

99. The 3rd, 4th, 8th, 9th, 22nd and 24th amendments should go too.

[Mojorabbit]

104. No

I won't give up any of my constitutional rights. If you don't want to own a gun that is fine with me.

[watercolors]

105. I whole heartly agree

I'll raise both hands. It will never happen here!!

[pdrichards114]

108. Hell no!!

I'm not a gun nut, but I own a few. Never had, and hope never to have to use them. But repealing an amendment to the constitution because a nutball can and inevitably does shoot some people is the stupidest rationalle I've ever heard.

A car can kill people so let's abolish them too, people can and do use cars as weapons. By the way, since its not a right to own or drive, it's therefore easier to revoke the privelage, so don't give me this rhetoric. It's tired.

[Mister Ed]

109. I thought the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights could not be repealed

I have some dim memory from my ninth grade civics class that the founders made sure there was no legal mechanism under the Constitution for repealing the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

I could be wrong, though. Constitutional scholars, please weigh in to affirm or correct me here.

[jmg257]

113. I have heard this recently too, but since they are part of the Constitution upon ratification,

and THAT can be amended, I don't know why they would be immune.

[zorahopkins]

117. Another Amendment Can Always Repeal Something Else

Of course a amendment that is in the Bill of Rights could be repealed.

ANY amendment can be repealed by another amendment.

Prohibition was an amendment. It was repealed by another amendment.

The original constitution provided that US Senators would be elected by state legislatures. That provision was repealed.

[zorahopkins]

111. Count Me In

If Amendment number two means that the government is powerless to take guns away, then amendment 2 needs to go.

The government simply must be able to keep guns away from people.

Look at what happened in Omaha. In Columbine. In Virginia Tech. In countless cities where people are killed with guns.

[-..__...]

131. Fourtantly, the Founding Fathers included a mechanism...

that would grant your desire to eradicate the 2nd amendment extremely unlikely

(unless you realistically believe 2/3rds of the House and Senate, followed by 3/4ths (37.5) of the states would vote to abolish the 2nd :rofl: ).

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 <1798>):

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

[pdrichards114]

114. Ok on banning guns, but all guns everywhere.

Not even the govt. or military or police can have guns or gunlike object, no tasers, pepperspray, batons, etc , then I'll be for it. Otherwise I still say FUCK NO!!!

[sss1977]

119. I'm sorry

But if if a permanent state of martial law is declared here, I want a gun.

People should not fear their government. But government should fear its people. What's a government to fear if all we're carrying are rocks and sticks?

[Atman]

120. Don't fuck with the Constitution as a knee-jerk reaction to a psychopath.

If anything, the Bush administration should be a lesson to us all that the second amendment is perhaps the most precious. If you can't defend yourself, who the hell cares if you can speak freely? If a fascist government barges into your home to do an illegal (read: anti-Constitutional) search and seizure, your free speech will do squat for you. What are you gonna do, "speak freely" to them?

BushCo has done many horrible things. But hopefully this administration has done one good thing -- open our eyes to the sacredness of our Constitution.

.

[earth mom]

124. I hate guns. But the founding fathers put that amendment in to ward off tyranny.

Look how the far the bastards in office have gotten already in their war against the people.

If the people had no guns-TPTB would use it to their maximum advantage in a nanosecond. :yoiks:

[Richard Steele]

125. George W. Bush and all his friends would LOVE to see your notion put into action.

Best of luck to ALL of you.

[leftist_not_liberal]

126. ^^ Another authoritarian liberal

with absolutely no grasp whatsoever on practical politics or the nature of the police state that very much demands an armed populous if it is to be forestalled.

Thanks for taking the position that insures the steady reichward move here at home. Those of us who love liberty and justice for all appreciate it.

[JNelson6563]

127. Ban all guns!!

Make the streets safe for a government takeover!

Oy.