Repeal and replace the second amendment with what exactly?

[Teallaura]

What we seem to have here is a case of some ignorant nutters wanting to eliminate guns versus educated and knowledgeable gun owners and supports who oppose them. Pretty clear.

No, we have scared people wanting an immediate solution and more scared people afraid they might get it. All I see is fear on both sides.

[Starlight]

And yet none of y'all seems to think that Switzerland is crazy and they keep automatic weapons in their houses.

I think Switzerland is crazy to keep automatic weapons in their houses.

[JimL]

And yet none of y'all seems to think that Switzerland is crazy and they keep automatic weapons in their houses.

"They"? They, also only have 2 million guns in a population of over 8 million. We have more guns in this country than we have people. Apparently, they also don't have the same problem with guns than we do here in the U.S.

[Sparko]

A call for abolition isn't 'most people' - come on, that article doesn't begin to refute Jim's point - nary a stat in sight!

Look around - other than Jed, name a gun control opponent here that actually supports repealing ALL gun control laws? Laws that prohibit the underaged, felons, mentally ill and mentally unstable are almost universally supported - and they are all gun control. Most opponents oppose either unfair regulation, licensing of weapons and/or abolition of individual ownership. Very few actually support the literalist (and wrong) reading of the Second that concludes government has no right at all to legislate gun control measures.

The knee jerk 'gun control evil' idea is just stupid. People like me - and I assume Jim - who support gun control but not abolition or unduly unfair restrictions get attacked as if we were supporting immediate abolition - turning potential allies into enemies is not a good plan.

There are people like you and JimL who say they support gun control but not bannng them, and there are people who claim that but do want a complete ban, and there are those who actually come out and say they want a complete ban or repeal of the 2nd. You are doing exactly what you claim I am, assuming "everyone" agrees with you. They don't. While you are reasonable, the end goal is to remove all guns from private ownership. Liberals will say that is not what they want and pass more regulations. But then those regulations don't stop gun violence so they want more. and more, and more. The end result will be like the UK with no private ownership except in special cases under heavy government regulation.

And you want me to name another gun control opponent that supports repealing all gun control laws? Me. I think any gun control laws are actually against the constitution because they literally infringe on the right to bear and keep arms, don't they? But I will live with some as a compromise. Basically we are turning a blind eye to the constitution when we do that. And liberals take that as submission and want more, more, MORE.

When has a liberal ever been satisfied with what they claim? Remember when gays said they only wanted to be accepted? Then they only wanted to have their relationships legally recognized for insurance and such but no, they were not trying to legalize gay marriage! anyone who claimed they were was using the slippery slope fallacy! remember that? So did they stop there? No! They went on to fight for gay marriage. I guess that slope was slippery after all huh? Same with gun control.

[JimL]

There are people like you and JimL who say they support gun control but not bannng them, and there are people who claim that but do want a complete ban, and there are those who actually come out and say they want a complete ban or repeal of the 2nd. You are doing exactly what you claim I am, assuming "everyone" agrees with you. They don't. While you are reasonable, the end goal is to remove all guns from private ownership. Liberals will say that is not what they want and pass more regulations. But then those regulations don't stop gun violence so they want more. and more, and more. The end result will be like the UK with no private ownership except in special cases under heavy government regulation.

Whose end goal? We have already said that the goal is sensible and responsible regulation, not the removal of all guns from pvt ownership. That accusation is just the NRA talking points aimed at scaring responsible gun owners, perhaps people like you, into thinking a tyrannical government is out to disarm the people. It's just nonsense. We are the government, the decision is ours, and if we chose to remove all guns, which no one is advocating, then that would be up to us. You like to say that its a natural right to keep and bear arms, but there is no such thing as a natural right to possess any particular object. That's nonsense.

And you want me to name another gun control opponent that supports repealing all gun control laws? Me. I think any gun control laws are actually against the constitution because they literally infringe on the right to bear and keep arms, don't they? But I will live with some as a compromise. Basically we are turning a blind eye to the constitution when we do that. And liberals take that as submission and want more, more, MORE.

Not a natural right, Sparko. And that you would want no regulations at all, first of all I don't believe you, and second, it is beyond stupid.

When has a liberal ever been satisfied with what they claim? Remember when gays said they only wanted to be accepted? Then they only wanted to have their relationships legally recognized for insurance and such but no, they were not trying to legalize gay marriage! anyone who claimed they were was using the slippery slope fallacy! remember that? So did they stop there? No! They went on to fight for gay marriage. I guess that slope was slippery after all huh? Same with gun control.

Curious how you seem to think that "Gays" are all liberals. Besides that, the analogy doesn't hold. Homosexuals were merely fighting for the same rights afforded to everyone else. Its the rights that are in question here in the gun debate, not how they are unfairly distributed.

[rogue06]

Whose end goal? We have already said that the goal is sensible and responsible regulation, not the removal of all guns from pvt ownership.

This would be far more believable if the left didn't refuse to enforce the laws that do get passed. It is getting to the point that it is not unreasonable to suspect that y'all want to pass laws that you have no intention on enforcing solely so you can later say that nothing worked and Australia style confiscation^[1] is the only option left.









1 And the mere fact that Australia is often held up as a model also strongly suggests that an Australia-like "solution" is what the end goal is.

[Sparko]

Whose end goal? We have already said that the goal is sensible and responsible regulation, not the removal of all guns from pvt ownership. That accusation is just the NRA talking points aimed at scaring responsible gun owners, perhaps people like you, into thinking a tyrannical government is out to disarm the people. It's just nonsense. We are the government, the decision is ours, and if we chose to remove all guns, which no one is advocating, then that would be up to us. You like to say that its a natural right to keep and bear arms, but there is no such thing as a natural right to possess any particular object. That's nonsense.

You say "we" as if you are speaking for all liberals. I have already shown you several sources that prove you wrong and me right. You are the typical liberal who says one thing while meaning another.

Not a natural right, Sparko. And that you would want no regulations at all, first of all I don't believe you, and second, it is beyond stupid.

It is a natural right. And I don't care if you believe me. The only one being stupid here is you. But that is to be expected.

Curious how you seem to think that "Gays" are all liberals. Besides that, the analogy doesn't hold. Homosexuals were merely fighting for the same rights afforded to everyone else. Its the rights that are in question here in the gun debate, not how they are unfairly distributed.

I am not arguing about gay rights. Just about the process of how liberals claim to be wanting an inch while fully expecting to take a mile, all the while assuring the right that they are just being paranoid. It happens every time, Jim.

[Mountain Man]

This would be far more believable if the left didn't refuse to enforce the laws that do get passed. It is getting to the point that it is not unreasonable to suspect that y'all want to pass laws that you have no intention on enforcing solely so you can later say that nothing worked and Australia style confiscation^[1] is the only option left.









1 And the mere fact that Australia is often held up as a model also strongly suggests that an Australia-like "solution" is what the end goal is.

And despite the fact that Australia's gun ban has had a negligible impact on overall rates of violent crime. The goal is simply to ban guns. Whether or not it actually makes society safer is irrelevant to them.

[TheWall]

Discussion is good. Name calling is not. I know it is hard to not be tribal about this, but please try not to be.

[Teallaura]

There are people like you and JimL who say they support gun control but not bannng them, and there are people who claim that but do want a complete ban, and there are those who actually come out and say they want a complete ban or repeal of the 2nd. You are doing exactly what you claim I am, assuming "everyone" agrees with you. They don't. While you are reasonable, the end goal is to remove all guns from private ownership. Liberals will say that is not what they want and pass more regulations. But then those regulations don't stop gun violence so they want more. and more, and more. The end result will be like the UK with no private ownership except in special cases under heavy government regulation.

Um, granted - but I said you weren't reading it correctly and you weren't. Most is the critical conditional here.

And you want me to name another gun control opponent that supports repealing all gun control laws? Me. I think any gun control laws are actually against the constitution because they literally infringe on the right to bear and keep arms, don't they? But I will live with some as a compromise. Basically we are turning a blind eye to the constitution when we do that. And liberals take that as submission and want more, more, MORE.

No, I want you to realize that there are almost no true gun control opponents - like proponents (as you just pointed out) positions vary. But full on, repeal them all, opponents are rarer than hen's teeth.

The point being we have common ground - in fact, most of us from both sides do.

When has a liberal ever been satisfied with what they claim? Remember when gays said they only wanted to be accepted? Then they only wanted to have their relationships legally recognized for insurance and such but no, they were not trying to legalize gay marriage! anyone who claimed they were was using the slippery slope fallacy! remember that? So did they stop there? No! They went on to fight for gay marriage. I guess that slope was slippery after all huh? Same with gun control.

I'm very much of the opinion that slippery slope is a political reality, but it's not rational here. States could have abolitised
gun ownership at any time - that's actually all incorporation prevented. States HAD that right until incorporation - but not a single one ever did it. Not even California or New York, bastions of gun hating liberals, to use your theme. Why?

The reason is simple - there simply isn't sufficient political will. IF that will ever emerges, then yes, abolition will become a reality - but right now gun ownership is so high that it's nearly impossible to see a means to get there politically.

Here's what I want you to understand - the knee jerk 'you're all out to take my guns' reaction is more likely to hurt your side's position in the long run. That's exactly what would set off the 'let's get rid of the things' mindset in the folks on the fence. Political will, not constitutionality, is what actually keeps individual gun ownership legal. Laws and the Constitution can and will be changed over time. It probably won't happen overnight but most major losses from opponents have come from exactly this sort of thing.

[KingsGambit]

And you want me to name another gun control opponent that supports repealing all gun control laws? Me. I think any gun control laws are actually against the constitution because they literally infringe on the right to bear and keep arms, don't they? But I will live with some as a compromise. Basically we are turning a blind eye to the constitution when we do that. And liberals take that as submission and want more, more, MORE.

I don't see how any single restriction on gun control would violate the Second Amendment. That would be like saying that laws against threatening to kill the president violate the First Amendment because technically they do restrict speech.

[Teallaura]

I don't see how any single restriction on gun control would violate the Second Amendment. That would be like saying that laws against threatening to kill the president violate the First Amendment because technically they do restrict speech.

You're kinda both right. Rights are not absolute - hence the right to free speech doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded building. But if there IS a fire, it's perfectly legal to yell about it.

Case law on the Second is sparse. The Court was never particularly fond of or interested in the Second. What incorporation did was apply an amendment that previously only applied to the Fed to the states.

Previous case law leaned heavily to original intent - absent a militia, the 'right' to own a machine gun goes out the window (Sparky will have conniptions but it does). Historically the Court has held that the Second means basically that 'because our armed forces have to have arms, Congress cannot infringe the right to keep those arms'. Once we have a standing army, that intent disappears.

The most recent Court has now decided that the right applies to individuals regardless of the military status. That's what happened in the decision to incorporate.

Then it takes a left turn at Albuquerque - the decision overturned very little regulation - the opposite of what one would expect. That's got to be a function of the decision but I'm not sure why and I won't have time to read it for another month or so. That said, the Court has recognized a right of ownership independent of military status - that tosses most of the original case law foundation so in theory, Sparky is right. In reality, that decision has got to be limited somehow or we'd have seen a LOT of changes made since the decision.


Jed and Sparky will now start arguing that case law has no bearing. If so, then the Second does not apply to the states as that was accomplished by - drum roll - case law!

I'm gonna go do something else now...

[JimL]

You say "we" as if you are speaking for all liberals. I have already shown you several sources that prove you wrong and me right. You are the typical liberal who says one thing while meaning another.

No, I said "we" as in those of us who argue for sensible gun laws. And no you haven't shown anything that proves you right, because you are wrong. You are a typical conservative who refuses to take off his horse blinders.

It is a natural right. And I don't care if you believe me. The only one being stupid here is you. But that is to be expected.

There is no such thing as a natural right to own an object, and if you think there is then explain how you came to that conclusion. Was it revelatory?

I am not arguing about gay rights.

No, you just happened to bring up gay rights as an analogy, suggesting that all homosexuals are liberals. Hilarious.

Just about the process of how liberals claim to be wanting an inch while fully expecting to take a mile, all the while assuring the right that they are just being paranoid. It happens every time, Jim.

I don't think this is as much of a left, right, liberal, conservative, issue as you think it is. Most people, including a whole swathe of conservatives are for sensible gun laws, it's just that loud and nutty right wing base, like Trump and his 35-40%, that the republicans are afraid of.

[TheWall]

I still have not heard what counts much as sensible

What calibers? What laws? Granted i am happy we came to an important common ground, namely the importance of rights and human life.

[KingsGambit]

I still have not heard what counts much as sensible

What calibers? What laws? Granted i am happy we came to an important common ground, namely the importance of rights and human life.

You asked about Eddie Eagle at the beginning of the thread. What exactly did were you asking for about that? It's not a government program so I don't see what it would have to do with gun laws.