My proposed firearm amendment

Unfortunately your unsubstantiated opinion is unsupported by facts. Mexico and Brazil have far fewer firearms per capita (at least ten times less) but have 50-100% more gun deaths. And higher crime rates generally.

Same goes for states. About 45% of people in my state own firearms. The murder rate is 4/100,000. In Illinois the firearm ownership rate is 27% but the murder rate is 11/100,000. A place with less guns has more crime (murders as well) than a place with more guns. This would be impossible if you were correct.

 

yeah its a fraudulent argument but its out there. in the last few decades-the most popular handgun went from being a 6 shot revolver to a 17 shot Glock or Smith and Wesson 9mm and the AR 15-and its normal capacity 30 round magazine, became the most popular centerfire rifle in the USA-well outstripping the Remington 700 bolt action and the Winchester 94 Lever action. and yet the rate of gun deaths dropped.

 

your points are well taken-and might actually persuade an anti gunner who is truly motivated by a sincere but poorly reasoned desire to control crime. I think most of the anti gun posters have proven that crime control is not the real motivation

 

I have a better idea that doesn't involve an amendment of any kind.

ADDRESS THE CORE ISSUES OF WHY WE HAVE VIOLENCE!!!!

Poverty.
Poor Justice system. (make it into one of rehabilitation with punishment as an aside rather than one that is made strictly for punishment.)
Poor education system.
Poor mental health system.

These are the things that need to be addressed. These are the things that will reduce all violence, not just "gun violence". But ALL violence.

Targeting inanimate objects does nothing to resolve the core issues and blames the inanimate object.

 

You might have credibility except that you guys care more about not being inconvenienced getting a gun than saving lives.

 

Keep spinning, dude

Doesn't change the fact that easy access to the "inanimate objects" is a big part of the problem.

By the way, what exactly are republicans doing to address poverty and the poor education and mental health systems that you mention?

 

I think everyone understands what is the motivation behind suggesting using chemical warfare against people who won't give up their guns to a terrorist government

 

humor me-what would be the sort of access you want of lawful people and how would it meet the Bruen Constitutional standards? I assume you understand those standards

 

But it does.

 

The amendment I contemplate would not repeal or replace the 2nd amendment. It wouldn't even amend the 2nd amendment. It would be a new amendment. I don't know what I wrote to suggest otherwise. The courts would have to harmonize the law with both the second amendment and the amendment I am proposing.

 

Yep, people saying that you can't take all the guns and me telling you how you can.

 

and you’re unaware of how excellent it is for home defense?

 

what does-that is not really definite enough to figure out what you are referring to

 

I am failing to see any valid benefit of your proposal

 

Well, it wouldn't empower states to start conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. I don't propose amending either the 2nd or the 4th amendments, and most state constitutions prohibit warrantless searches (absent exigent circumstances) anyway. What it might do is allow the people of Vermont to write a law that, say, restricts the size of ammo clips that could be sold within Vermont. You could challenge that law under both the 4th amendment and under my proposed, complementary amendment, if you really wanted to.

 

it is the most versatile self defense weapon I can think of-and yes I have shot them all from the fully autos like the MAC 10/11s, HK MP-F, Uzi, more shotguns than I can remember and even more handguns

 

Yes. I know one anti gun nut here recently admitted to being paid to advance that narrative here. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are others as well. It’s unfortunate the desire to control others is so strong—but it’s nothing new. Such folk have been around a good long time and will continue to be with us for a good long time to come.

Fortunately they lack cognitive abilities and reasoning skills necessary to fulfill their desires. The 1994 AWB referenced earlier is a good example. The clowns thought they would decrease proliferation so called assault weapons, but instead tripled their sales during the ban, causing the first significant increase in sales of those weapons in U.S. history. Some are so bamboozled they STILL don’t understand the ban led to MORE weapons, not less.

I don’t remember anti gunners saying the quiet parts out loud historically. I believe what we see now with everyone from the President to PF members threatening gun owners with nukes, armor, and chemical weapons is a sign of death throes. It’s like Putin threatening nukes in Ukraine. Just authoritarians who know they can’t win threatening mutually assured destruction if they can’t have their way.

It’s fascinating to watch. Like watching a fly attempt to exit through a closed pane of glass, somehow believing if they crash their head into the barrier just a little harder they may succeed. No thought. No reasoning. No success. If they weren’t threatening violence I would probably feel sorry for them.

 

The amendment you contemplate gives the states the power to restrict at will, anything they want.
So you want to keep the 2nd amendment but allow the states to decide on their own restrictions telling you what guns you can and can't own, what ammunition you can and can't purchase?
Nice try. lol

 

Oh they are working so kids don't read with people in drag. They continue to support tax breaks for Trump's wealthy friends which will 'trickle down', and vote to defund literally every program at the state or federal level design to provide services. They call it 'austerity measures' when its them that does it.

 

I know several are paid trollers. In reality they help the pro rights cause

 

"LOL"? Pretty disrespectful. I'm looking for some amelioration of what I and many Americans see as a serious problem.

My suggestion (do you even have one other than "LOL"?) would not allow the states to do anything more than enact reasonable restrictions on the number, caliber, and functionality of firearms possessed, sold, purchased or transported within the States. They might outlaw your AK47, true, and I'm sorry, but you'd get to vote on the legislators who would enact such restrictions, and they would only take effect if a majority of your own representatives agreed to the given reasonable restriction.

The second amendment is important, but it's not the only priority afoot here, or even the paramount one.

 

I'm not an anti-gunner. I'm a gun owner. And I don't lack cognitive skills. Did you ever prosecute a felon for being in possession of a firearm? There's a "reasonable restriction" right there. I think there may be others.

 

Citation needed.

 

1) I wasn't referring to you
2) yes my office did-I handled their unsuccessful appeals and collateral attacks (S. 2255 petition)
3) yes, at a state level if the felony was violent. a guy who got a felony for smoking weed or tax evasion-no

 

Well, it's obvious that some people in your state must disagree. I think they should be able to express their opinion by enacting reasonable restrictions, if they want to. We can't own fully automatic machine guns, sawed off shotguns, bazookas, or portable missiles. Are those unreasonable limitations on our right to bear arms?