Repeal and replace the second amendment with what exactly?

[TheWall]

I want no bickering or name calling. I want to know what people have in mind for this. What laws do you propose? What will the new amendment say? What of existing laws and programs like Eddie eagle? I want to know.

[Sparko]

I would add, "...Except for liberals -- they have no right to bear arms or own guns and can infringe on themselves all they want to"

[TheWall]

I would add, "...Except for liberals -- they have no right to bear arms or own guns and can infringe on themselves all they want to"

As much as I want to laugh I do believe that the right to self defense is a human right and thus higher than political opinion.

[Teallaura]

I want no bickering or name calling. I want to know what people have in mind for this. What laws do you propose? What will the new amendment say? What of existing laws and programs like Eddie eagle? I want to know.

Okay - but you aren't going to like it.

1) Don't bother with a repeal - overturn incorporation. That would put the ball back where it originally belonged - in the state courts.

2) Neither repeal not losing incorporation would get what I think the law should be like - I think gun control should be Federal with uniform laws across all states so that thugs from NYC can't go to a SC gun show and pick up weapons they can't legally purchase in NYC. Added benefit is that gun advocates could no longer complain about '30,000 + laws on the books since Fed would supersede the other jurisdictions.

3) Require sellers to observe the statutes of the buyer's state - this requires Fed law and might possibly require a Constitutional amendment (don't think so) but it eliminates much of the jurisdictional hopping.

4) Penalize harshly sales to unlicensed buyers - by anyone. If Bubba can't show you his licenses or you're too dumb to get a copy at the time of sale (smart phones make this ridiculously easy) then when he gets arrested with it on him after a bar fight, guess who gets fined? Bubba uses it in the commission of a crime and the fine is much steeper. Bubba is your cousin and you helped him get that criminal record, you are looking at jail time.

Bubba showed you a license that appeared legit and you have the copy to prove it, Bubba is on his own when they prosecute him for fraud.

5) Background checks for commercial sellers to sell firearms. You show up at the gun show with more than one, congrats, you are a commercial seller for the day. Decide to get together after the show to avoid the hassle - pray that gun doesn't turn up at a crime scene because you'll be heavily fined.

Got the background check and a copy of the license - you're in the clear.

This is actually a potential business opportunity - certify to perform checks and rent a booth at the show. Probably got a higher profit margin than selling guns does anyway.

6) Waiting periods for first time buyers and mandatory certification/licensing. Define 'first time' as 'first time in last three years' - maybe the guy just didn't have the money before - or maybe his gun is lost and his girlfriend has a new boyfriend he would like to eliminate - a few days gives him some chance to calm down. But I don't see the point with a guy that bought a gun last week - his purchase probably has nothing to do with any hotheaded notions.

Unless he is telling his cousin he wants something the cops can't trace - do the words 'aiding and abetting' ring any bells?

7) Ownership responsibility - guns should be treated like an attractive nuisance - if you own it, you are fully responsible for what happens to it and with it - and you don't get to call a standard door lock adequate protection any more than you get to call a split rail fence adequate for a swimming pool. You want it then you feed and care for it. You fail in that and you pay for the damages (SoL of a year - no mistake should have indefinite consequences).

Personally, I think that should include negligent maintenance - you don't bother to take care of it and you or someone else is hurt when it misfires guess who pays? But I'll grant that could be taking it a bit far. Mostly because it would be hard to prove anything beyond gross negligence.

[Teallaura]

I would add, "...Except for Sparky -- he has no right to bear arms or arm bears."

Fixed it for ya!

[TheWall]

Teal I have to give you props you came up with something. One of these days after I buy a gun I will get all the work I did so we can look over it.

[Starlight]

I want no bickering or name calling. I want to know what people have in mind for this. What laws do you propose? What will the new amendment say? What of existing laws and programs like Eddie eagle? I want to know.

Simply repeal the 2nd amendment (or as Teal suggested repeal incorporation). This removes the legal issues and allows the government to reasonably regulate guns just as it does cars.

I would then suggest that the federal government copy the gun laws of some other Western countries (UK, Australia, NZ, Germany etc) with regard to licensing, storage, types of weapons etc.

In NZ the application process for a license is:
- Police background check
- A home visit by a professional to check you have an appropriate lockable storage cabinet, and 10-20 minute in-person interviews with yourself and a couple of references, to confirm you are an appropriate person to be having a gun and that you want it for the right types of reasons (=hunting, farm usage. "Self-defense" is an automatic rejection).
- Sitting a course run by the government on the safe use of firearms

The types of firearms that are legal are mostly limited to the types appropriate for hunting/farming purposes (i.e. not handguns, not automatics). Once obtained, the firearms must be stored empty of ammo in a locked cabinet and the ammo in a separate locked cabinet. They can only be transported from your home directly to the place of usage (hunting/farm) and they are not otherwise allowed to be carried in public (I have never in my life seen a gun in public in an urban area).

Misuse results in the removal of your gun license and any firearms you own.

I do believe that the right to self defense is a human right and thus higher than political opinion.

I agree that self-defense is a right, but I don't agree that there is a right "to self defense with guns" anymore than I think there is a right "to self defense with nukes". In my opinion the right to self-defense amounts to a legal right to defend oneself with minimum/proportionate force if physically attacked if retreat is not an option. It is not a right to preemptively stockpile dangerous weaponry, fortify one's property, carry dangerous weaponry etc.

[Littlejoe]

The right of all citizens of the United States to possess firearms for personal and/or home protection, and for other sporting purposes such as hunting and competition shooting, shall not be infringed upon, except when determined that this right should be forfeit due to mental illness or upon being convicted of a felony or reasonably suspected or convicted of terrorism or terroristic acts.


The ability to carry arms in public shall be up to the States to set criteria by which a person is determined to have sufficient training for said public carry. However, as a minimum, it should include firearm safety training and competency in said safety and shooting and handling said firearm by a licensed trainer/instructor.

[Jedidiah]

The 2nd is fine just the way it is. Our only problem is the collapse of the moral society we once had.

[rogue06]

The 2nd is fine just the way it is. Our only problem is the collapse of the moral society we once had.

High Schools used to have shooting clubs where in some the students brought their rifle to school on the bus. In 7th grade one of my friends got permission to bring a WWII era Luger pistol to class when we were discussing WWII. He had to keep it locked in his locker except for that class and could not bring a magazine.

[TheWall]

Simply repeal the 2nd amendment (or as Teal suggested repeal incorporation). This removes the legal issues and allows the government to reasonably regulate guns just as it does cars.

I would then suggest that the federal government copy the gun laws of some other Western countries (UK, Australia, NZ, Germany etc) with regard to licensing, storage, types of weapons etc.

In NZ the application process for a license is:
- Police background check
- A home visit by a professional to check you have an appropriate lockable storage cabinet, and 10-20 minute in-person interviews with yourself and a couple of references, to confirm you are an appropriate person to be having a gun and that you want it for the right types of reasons (=hunting, farm usage. "Self-defense" is an automatic rejection).
- Sitting a course run by the government on the safe use of firearms

The types of firearms that are legal are mostly limited to the types appropriate for hunting/farming purposes (i.e. not handguns, not automatics). Once obtained, the firearms must be stored empty of ammo in a locked cabinet and the ammo in a separate locked cabinet. They can only be transported from your home directly to the place of usage (hunting/farm) and they are not otherwise allowed to be carried in public (I have never in my life seen a gun in public in an urban area).

Misuse results in the removal of your gun license and any firearms you own.

I agree that self-defense is a right, but I don't agree that there is a right "to self defense with guns" anymore than I think there is a right "to self defense with nukes". In my opinion the right to self-defense amounts to a legal right to defend oneself with minimum/proportionate force if physically attacked if retreat is not an option. It is not a right to preemptively stockpile dangerous weaponry, fortify one's property, carry dangerous weaponry etc.

Might I ask why self defense is an automatic rejection?

[Starlight]

Might I ask why self defense is an automatic rejection?

Because that's the way the law is. If you want me to speculate wildly on why the law isn't different then...

1. There's no public pressure here to change the law. If anything the public pressure is to institute further gun restrictions. People here really don't want to have "crazy American gun culture" here where everyone has guns, most people here would consider that moronic at best.

2. From what I've seen of international studies, guns are generally more dangerous to the owner than they are a successful mechanism of defense (i.e. the owner is more likely to be injured or die from the gun in a suicide attempt or due to a criminal taking their own weapon and using it against them, than they are to successfully use it in self-defense), so it is irrational to attempt to use guns for self-defense. (Guns are inherently an aggressive weapon not a defensive one, so their use in self defense is inherently flawed anyway)

3. If a gun is properly stored (in a locked container, with the ammo locked separately) then it takes enough time to get the weapon ready that it is impractical for self-defense (i.e. any home invader will have attacked you already), and if it isn't properly stored then it's dangerous because children could get at it or it could go off or a home invader might grab it themselves. (If you are interested, Australian comedian Jim Jefferies has a very good 15 minute segment about gun control that you can find online (lots of swearing), where he talks about how home invaders grabbed him while he was in the shower and how him having a gun on the premises would have made no difference. He also talks generally about why people from other countries think the US gun laws/culture are crazy.)

4. Because guns are so heavily regulated here, on the whole criminals do not have guns (or knives of particularly dangerous kinds, those are regulated too). 99% of crime is committed without guns. If you are being attacked by a criminal, they will not have a gun, and hence you do not need a gun yourself to mount a reasonable defense against them. In my lifetime of all the people I have known here, only one person had a physical encounter with a criminal with a weapon - they were robbed at knife-point.

[TheWall]

Because that's the way the law is. If you want me to speculate wildly on why the law isn't different then...

1. There's no public pressure here to change the law. If anything the public pressure is to institute further gun restrictions. People here really don't want to have "crazy American gun culture" here where everyone has guns, most people here would consider that moronic at best.

2. From what I've seen of international studies, guns are generally more dangerous to the owner than they are a successful mechanism of defense (i.e. the owner is more likely to be injured or die from the gun in a suicide attempt or due to a criminal taking their own weapon and using it against them, than they are to successfully use it in self-defense), so it is irrational to attempt to use guns for self-defense. (Guns are inherently an aggressive weapon not a defensive one, so their use in self defense is inherently flawed anyway)

3. If a gun is properly stored (in a locked container, with the ammo locked separately) then it takes enough time to get the weapon ready that it is impractical for self-defense (i.e. any home invader will have attacked you already), and if it isn't properly stored then it's dangerous because children could get at it or it could go off or a home invader might grab it themselves. (If you are interested, Australian comedian Jim Jefferies has a very good 15 minute segment about gun control that you can find online (lots of swearing), where he talks about how home invaders grabbed him while he was in the shower and how him having a gun on the premises would have made no difference. He also talks generally about why people from other countries think the US gun laws/culture are crazy.)

4. Because guns are so heavily regulated here, on the whole criminals do not have guns (or knives of particularly dangerous kinds, those are regulated too). 99% of crime is committed without guns. If you are being attacked by a criminal, they will not have a gun, and hence you do not need a gun yourself to mount a reasonable defense against them. In my lifetime of all the people I have known here, only one person had a physical encounter with a criminal with a weapon - they were robbed at knife-point.

So might I ask what would a policeman recommend to someone who does want to defend themself? As for thinking Americans are crazy I could rebutt that, but I don't think it would fit well with my thread. By nature though self defense will put you in a situation where you can be harmed. No one wants to be harmed or see their loved ones harmed and that is a big part of why people do learn to defend themselves.

[Starlight]

So might I ask what would a policeman recommend to someone who does want to defend themself?

I'm not a policeman, but I imagine they would suggest self-defense classes to someone who asked them, which teach basic hand-to-hand combat skills and defense against knife attacks. Police here recommend that when nobody is home that houses be locked and windows be closed or on latches. Having an burglar alarm installed that makes noise if movement is detected when you're out of the house isn't unusual here - about ~10% of homes would have one.

If you were asking me personally, I would start asking you questions about what types of situations you imagine yourself 'defending yourself' in and how frequently you would perceive such situations occurring, with a view to trying to decide whether you were suffering so badly from irrational paranoia that sending you to a psychologist or getting you some anti-anxiety drugs might help. It appears to me that US conservatives are indoctrinated by propaganda with the idea that they 'need' to be ready to defend themselves and their families from the 'criminals' who are apparently out to get everyone. Whereas the facts of the matter are that (here at least) such violent crime is so vanishingly rare that taking any precautions at all are totally irrational. Whenever I talk to US conservatives on the subject I find myself itching to send the whole lot of you to a psychiatrist for psychiatric help and drugs to get you help with your anxiety and fear disorders.

No one wants to be harmed or see their loved ones harmed and that is a big part of why people do learn to defend themselves.

IMO that is an irrational response to a threat that is so improbable as to be vanishingly small that it borders on a diagnosable disorder. What crime there is is primarily theft of possessions not the harming of people. There is no criminal cabal out there plotting against you and your family that you need to 'defend yourself' from. You have just been brainwashed by propaganda designed to encourage you to totally needlessly buy guns in order to feel like a real man who can defend his family. They are playing on your gullibility.

[Mountain Man]

I want no bickering or name calling. I want to know what people have in mind for this. What laws do you propose? What will the new amendment say? What of existing laws and programs like Eddie eagle? I want to know.

As I said in the other thread where this was brought up, if it has to change then simply strip out the language about militias, which seems to confuse liberals, and have it read, simply, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."