My proposed firearm amendment

The gun nuts say yes they are.

 

I'm glad to hear it, but they don't all lose their appeals, and quite a few have prevailed, in the Fifth Circuit anyway:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1481498.html

In the 9th, maybe not so much.

 

The 2A and your proposed amendment cannot be harmonized, in my opinion. The 2A says "the right ... shall not be infringed", and your proposed amendment allows for "infringement", in my opinion. Your proposed amendment says, "reasonable restrictions on the number, caliber, and functionality of firearms possessed", and that is certainly an "infringement" on the right.

My liberal state would use it to ban magazine fed semi-automatic rifles, most likely, as well as handguns, rifles, and shotguns with a capacity of more than 5 rounds, and the number of guns a person could own.

I don't think the 2A and your proposed amendment can be reconciled, and I am quite certain that my state would definitely use your proposed amendment to restrict the number of guns you could own, the calibers, and the functionality. If that isn't an "infringement" on the right, I don't know what is.

 

I think in their hearts of hearts, they know better.

 

still waiting to hear why I and 100+ million lawful gun owners would benefit from your proposal

 

Obviously they are talking in that amendment about infringement by legislatures, congress, and perhaps executive orders. I'm suggesting that the Bill of Rights can be amended, and it has been, several times, as we all know.

But even if we stick to the and amendment, is the congressional prohibition on possession of fully automatic machine guns and bazookas an infringement? Is the loss of the right upon conviction of a felony not an infringement? The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct, nor is it perfect.

 

@Le Chef

I have voiced this opinion before, but I think we need to remember that we didn't used to have frequent mass shootings. From 1950-1969 there was only one mass shooting that killed 10 or more people.

So what changed? Guns were more readily available then than they are now, so what changed? This is the question we need to answer. And when we can answer it, we need to reverse course and fix what's gone wrong with our society.

 

Well, I confess that I'm not trying to only "benefit gun owners," though they too, presumably, have kids and an interest in seeing some minimal effort to reduce gun violence. We can't even try, is what I am getting from the responses.

Anyway, I don't even know that your current gun collection would be affected.

 

No they don't, they only care about ma gunnns.

 

I wasn't born yesterday myself, and I think what changed was the proliferation of guns of the type used in the school and similar shootings. You didn't have an AK-47 hanging on your gun rack in your 65 Ford pickup. There is also a peculiar fascination with guns that wasn't extant in the 50's.

There wasn't also the proliferation of drugs, prescribed and illegal, making too many of us paranoid and psychotic and defensive about "rights", not only imagined rights to abortion and to shout down speakers at universities and to reparations for past sins, but also rights to own guns with no regulation whatsoever. Finally, you didn't find out about mass murders in Pennsylvania if you lives in Arizona, for at least not right away, and they weren't sensationalized as they are now.

Honestly we conservatives (and yes, I am one, despite my imagined threat to your guns ) sound as bad as liberals when it comes to guns: there are only "rights," and no correlative obligations.

 

I mean they know that congress can constitutionally prohibit, notwithstanding the 2nd Amendment, certain kinds of weapons now, or at least make it very, very difficult to get a license to own, for example, bazookas or a fully automatic machine gun.

 

Dear Boys & Girls

​

 

And that's exactly why more gun laws won't do a damn thing to prevent murders committed with a firearm.

Make the death penalty a mandatory sentence for murder and you'll see a difference.

 

What? I dindo nuffin.

 

Anyone who doesn't want to own a gun is absolutely free to not own a gun. Stop telling me I can't own one.

We can all those, except the missiles. The regulations on owning them, except the missiles, are unreasonable. Has the murder rate gone down because those weapons are over-regulated? Obviously not.

The fact that automatic weapons, short barreled shotguns and rifles are over-regulated and you all still want to ban guns is just more proof that the anti-gunners won't stop until gun ownership is outlawed, across the board.

If you want an all out ban on missiles with explosive warheads, then fine, ban them. No one is saying they shouldn't be prohibited from private civilian ownership.

 

And if one of mine were a victim, I'd pull the switch myself. But murderers aren't afraid of the death penalty, and mass murderers are looking to get killed during the shootings anyway.

This is one reason more and more prosecutors are foregoing the death penalty and seeking life sentences without possibility of parole. It gets them off the street forever and is way less expensive.

 

I never said you can't own a gun. And why can't I own a stinger?

 

Those tax breakers apply to non-weslthy people, too...lol

 

There is no such thing as reasonable. Everyone has a different definition.
If you want to get to the root of gun violence, you can't do it by trying to blame guns.
It hasn't worked with the thousands of gun laws on the books now, and it won't work with more gun laws.

So do you have the ability to have a non partisan discussion about the problem? I know I can.

If you are hell bent on restricting guns and ammo, then lets approach it your way.
So lets start by addressing the largest rates of gun violence in the US. At least we can start there.
Deaths per 100,000 of populations. What is the leading cause of violent gun deaths in this country so
we can impose reasonable restrictions to guns and ammo.

Deaths per 100,000 per race
State White- Black
Alabama 8.6- 37
Arizona 16.4- 29.9
Arkansas 19 - 45.4
California 8- 27.1
Colorado 14.8- 28
Connecticut 4- 18.2
Delaware 8.8- 33.1
Florida 13.1- 24.9
Georgia 14.7- 25.7
Illinois 6- 53.7
Indiana 13- 49.8
Iowa 10.1- 34.4
Kansas 14.2- 41.7
Kentucky 17.4- 47.6
Louisiana 15.4- 46.4
Maryland 7.2- 27.6
Mass 2.6 - 11.9
Michigan 9.4- 42.1
Minnesota 7.6 - 21.5
Mississippi 20.2- 41.1
Missouri 16.4 - 73.7
Nebraska 9.5- 23.4
Nevada 19.7- 28.8
New Jersey 3.1- 17
New Mexico 25.6- 46.4
New York 4- 14.8
North Car 13.5 - 25.8
Ohio 10.3- 45
Oklahoma 20.1- 33.3
Oregon 13.5- 26.3
Pennsylvania 9- 42.2
South Caro 17.3- 35.4
Tennessee 16.1- 43.9
Texas 15.9- 25.2
Virginia 11.9- 24.3
Washington 11- 18.4
Wisconsin 9.1- 46

The lowest rate among whites is 2 and the highest is 20
The lowest rate among blacks is 14 and the highest is 53.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

So its pretty obvious that 13% of the population is committing more than 50% of all gun crimes.
By making it illegal for blacks to own high cal firearms, we cure 50% of all major gun crime in the US with just one law. Restricting access to say, a 22 cal. Single shot.

Now I didn't make this claim because I think its something we should do. I made this claim to illustrate
how addressing guns with state to state restriction and legislation policies will eventually end up.
And the other Constitutional issues you have to jump over to continue this.

You thoughts?

 

Dylan Roof took a plea deal to avoid the death penalty.

If murderers weren't afraid of the death penalty, none of them would spend 20 years appealing their death penalty...lol

 

I mean it's not a provable deterrence.

What's with all the LOL's? It's a serious subject.

 

I'm not sure a bazooka is controlled anywhere. So you won't. I've seen 15 year olds buy them and carry them around at school legally.

That's the reason for the second amendment. To stop you from having what you would like.

 

I'm struggling to understand his legal ownership of guns cause children to die.

Explain please?

 

There's more crime without a death penalty than with a death penalty.

 

You can't own a stinger because it can be used to shoot down aircraft. It has no use as a self-defense weapon.