My proposed firearm amendment

it absolutely is it's the only one that is probable beyond any doubt. I'll explain.

If you are executed can you murder anybody else?

I laugh when people say the death penalty isn't a deterrent because it really is funny.

After the death penalty is carried out the person who it was carried out on can never kill anybody ever again that's absolutely rock solid barring any evidence of murder from beyond the grave.

 

Constitutional issues? I explicitly conceded ij the OP (why do I try?) that you can't do much regulating under the current Constitution and 2nd Amendment case law. That's the reason I am suggesting that the Second Amendment be read together with a new Amendment that would clarify that yes, we have the right to bear arms, but the states can enact reasonable regulation. To me, the power to regulate is already there in the 2nd Amendment, but if one word about regulation is mentioned on thks board, people go into a blind panic that Joe Biden (and now I) is going to come and take away all their guns. It's madness.

A strict reading of the 2nd Amendment (no infringement ... none) would prohibit the slightest restriction on the sales of multiple AK's and limitless ammunition to a paranoid schizophrenic with a gun fetish and a track record of violent crime.

Giving the fellow citizens of your state the power to do what they think (you get to vote too) might reduce gun deaths, short of "banning all guns" as some of you erroneously think I advocate, is not an insane proposition.

But I didn't expect anyone to agree.

 

See above. They are not planning to get caught - except the ones who want 'death- by- cop' as their end game. Your death penalty is useless as a deterrent.

 

It only takes 13 state legislatures to veto any amendment. There are 12 states in the South alone. Throw in several heavily pro-2A Western states like Idaho, Wyoming, etc and a couple of unexpected outliers like New Hampshire and you have literally no chance.

That's the whole crux of the problem for the left on this issue. The amendment process is deliberately conservative - it's very hard to change the constitution - by design.

 

I mean that studies do not show an inarguable correlation between the death penalty and murder rates, or they are at least mixed. The studies, I mean
I support the death penalty in some cases, but in terms of deterrence, life w/o possibility of parole is just as effective.

 

the death penalty to the right is often similar to gun control to the left. there is a faith based belief that these things reduce crime. As @Polydectes correctly notes, the DP advocates do have the undeniable proof that executed felons cannot commit other crimes

 

Actually, possession of fully automatic firearms is not prohibited, but it is regulated. To own one legally, you have to apply through the BATF and pay a fee. I have a gun collector friend who is going through that process right now to take possession of a fully automatic Thompson sub machine gun. I don't know about bazookas, but even if you can get a special permit to own one, you probably cannot get ammunition for it. Companies that make ammunition for that kind of weapon sell only to the military I believe. I'm not taking the time to research that question right now, but that's my guess.

Our courts already allow for certain restrictions that we all, almost universally, agree to. We do not sell firearms to persons under 18, people with felony convictions, in some states, people with misdemeanor convictions for crimes of violence (like domestic assault), people with domestic abuse restraining orders against them, and people who have ever been committed to a mental institution. The government may also prohibit the possession of firearms in government buildings even though they're open to the public. People who can legally purchase firearms may not do so for someone who is prohibited from possessing firearms. And, in some states, there are "red flag" laws that allow for the preemptive confiscation of firearms from a person if they have demonstrated that, by word or deed, that they are an imminent danger to the public.

So yes, we have imposed some restrictions on a right that the Constitution says "shall not be infringed." But we have also imposed restrictions on speech, assembly, and religion. And the reason we have done so without violating the Constitution is that civil society has a right to defend itself and to preserve order. It is this inherent right we are exercising when we place certain restrictions on the 2A that I gave examples of. And where the 2A says, "The right of the People ..." I believe we may intuitively understand that the Founders were talking about law-abiding people, not murderers, rapists, robbers and outlaws.

So the restrictions we have approved are for the self defense of civil society, and they are focused on stopping criminals and the insane from preying on law abiding citizens. These measures have virtually no effect on the right of law abiding citizens and, therefore, do not infringe on the right of the (intended) "People" to "keep and bear arms."

But when you pass an amendment that would allow for the government to restrict firearms based upon their caliber or the way they function, or restricting how many firearms may be possessed, you are no longer focusing on impeding criminals. Instead, you are passing an amendment that does have a clear infringement on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. And so it is for these reasons that I see no way to reconcile the 2A with your proposed amendment.

I wish to say this next thing to you, however. You are thinking out of the box, and I admire that. I disagree with you on this, but at least you're thinking out of the box, searching for solutions. I like that.

Cheers

 

Such an amendment would shut me up.

 

The 'live in' State would have clear Constitutional power to outlaw doing so....under that Amendment.

 

Fine...make it life if you like!

 

Why...what do you fear if you have no guns...like I have no guns...like most people in Australia don't have guns.

 

Okay...tell me about the number of guns in Australia and gun deaths here. Why just look at Mexico and Brazil?

 

If a study shows anything but an absolute 100% deterrence in every single case it isn't worth the paper is written on.

If you're dead you can't kill anybody.

Absolutely BS Life in prison gives you the opportunity to escape our murder other prisoners.

If you are pushing up the daisies you can't do either of these things

It's 100% effective every time it's administered

 

Do it see what happens.

 

Ok, I hear what your saying but you really didn't address my point.
I conceded to your request for states to implement gun restrictions base on state stats.
Lets agree for the moment that we have your amendment approved and its now in the constitution as stated in your OP.

Why would we consider any one size fits all with this new amendment. You want different states to govern themselves when it comes to restrictions on guns and ammo. Am I right?
They are all going to take advantage of this new amendment (which its why its there in the first place) so they can regulate guns and ammo to what each state determines is the best course of action for the safety of all citizens,

How long will it take before some legislator comes up with the bright idea, that he alone can solve the largest gun violence in his state by restricting caliber of weapons by race?
After all, the data would support his legislation and his state has the right to govern and restrict guns and ammo.
If you are the governor of Illinois with a violent gun death by blacks is 53 x100,000 while your white population is 6 x 100,000, and you can write a law that states based on historical real data, we need to restrict blacks to single shot 22s and bird shot only for shotguns, why wouldn't that make sense?

Now the crazy reality of it is, Illinois, with the countries highest ratio of black deaths per 100K would call it racist.
But other states that don't have numbers close to that wouldn't.

Are you not seeing the point I am making here? You can't legislate gun restrictions by state because all you will end up doing is creating a much much bigger problem.

You have to address the real problem which is sociopath's, mentally deficient, and dangerous individuals getting guns.
And the only way to do that, is incorporate questions on gun applications that will produce results.

Are you, or have you ever, considered yourself to be a sex not of your birth.
If they falsify their answer, they have committed a felony and their background check will verify their claim.
No, we do not want people with gender dysphoria to own guns. The suicide rate alone warrants that decision.

Are you, or have you ever, had a restraining order against you.
If the answer is yes, then more investigation needs to happen before issuing a permit

Are you, or have you ever been under any psychiatric evaluation

What medical prescriptions are you currently taking
And provide a list they can check off

Are you currently involved in civil litigation
Give example

Are you currently in a divorce litigation

Do you have any training from a firearm specialist
Please provide certificate

Please provide 3 references known to you personally

Now, we can start the right process for owning a firearm

 

Indiscriminate fire weapons are not suitable for self defense.

This is the underlying 'logic' behind all of our gun laws between the 1960s and 1990s (and before that, most of the gun control logic was 'take guns from the blacks!'...). And any/all gun control SHOULD have been legislated via constitutional amendment instead of the authoritarian bureaucratic fiat we used to create precedent almost 100 years ago now (the same way we did to weed, btw). But that is no reason to continue using more authoritarian bureaucratic fiat to further restrict discriminate fire weapons that ARE suitable for self defense.

Just cuz we been doin it wrong don't mean we should keep doin it wrong even more.

 

a defensive firearm is akin to a parachute. If you need one, and do not have it-you most likely will never need anything else in your life

 

The only thing guns are good for in this context is making me just as much a threat to criminals as they are to me. So long as guns exist and criminals exist, I'll have guns as well to level the playing field against the criminals. It doesn't guarantee security, but it does promote security.

What I fear is being made into a criminal for protecting myself from criminals. That's the sort of catch-22 nonsense that only criminal government institutes.

 

Far from shying away from the 2nd Amendment, 26 states have made Constitutional Carry the law of the land. I would go so far as to say there is absolutely zero chance that the 2nd Gets amended...and the efforts that are set forth will be to repeal it...and those efforts will fail. The Lt Gov of Virginia recently made a statement that is 100% true. White, back, male, female, conservative, or liberal...make no mistake...as a people, we will not surrender our firearms.

 

The only amendment that I would accept is one that states more clearly that Americans have the right to own farms and no state or municipality can make a law to interfere with that right no matter what.

I mean that's what we have now but we've been letting dates and cities get away with interfering with it.

Going to also accept any prosecutor that maliciously prosecutes someone for self-defense automatically be sentenced to a life sentence. Treason should not be tolerated to even if it's a DA doing it.

 

Having a government like yours enjoy your bug burgers that's coming and you have no say in it.

I'm going to post this video but I'm not sure if you're going to be able to watch it for your government approves of this message.

But it's funny and it's only 24 seconds long and other people can get a laugh out of it.

 

I am not calling for a change to the Second Amendment. I'm contemplating a new Amendment that would have to be read together with the second Amendment.

I suppose a new clause could be added to the Second Amendment, sort of like the Free Exercise Clause complements the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

But of course the Constitution can never be amended.

 

Ah...so we all should have parachutes?

 

Even if the life of your child was at stake...as it might well be in the USA. It's a lucky dip every day your kids go to School.

 

Weird!