racism pervasive in our society..we see who are most often the victims. Way past time
for Americans of all stripes to demand much more...together we can do this.

despite your eloquent "too much freedom" post.

Do you even know what is involved in repealing a constitutional amendment?

It's the only way to stop mass shootings. Even meaningful gun regulation doesn't work unless you get rid of the guns.

Get back to me in fifty years. If the 2nd Amendment has been repealed by then, I owe you a coke.

A culture here in America has been dominated by believing that guns protect us, keep us safe. This is a popular opinion amongst older people in this country who grew up with this culture. Statistics already show that most young people don't want to own guns and don't believe in the redneck gun culture that has spread over the last 50 years. Change is coming. We have amended the constitution many times and what is needed is for a majority of people in this country to see the real problem and act on it. We have accomplished many things in this country that previously people thought were impossible. This country is becoming more liberal more progressive every day, and conservatives will eventually lose there last toy of oppression. It is coming.

(If indeed one can say it is one today.) The Constitution will be meaningless because the fascists and teabaggers will have turned it into the Republic of Gilead. So heads I win, tails you lose.

So you want the Constitution to fail?

Unbelievable...

No matter what. Either the 2nd Amendment is changed, or the Constitution will no longer matter, but in both cases the 2nd Amendment will cease to exist.

Do you honestly think that if the US completes it slide into total rule by the 1%-ers with the teapartiers, fundies, and Stormfronters as their capos that ordinary people will be allowed to keep their guns unless they agree to help keep their neighbors docile and enslaved? Either change the Amendment, or make it irrelevant, those are your two options, only in the first case the US then has a chance to become a civilized country, and in the second, a nigh guaranteed future as a dystopia. I know which one I would choose.

gunnies any gun "rights"

In fact, the SCOTUS has the only say that matters on what the Constitution says.

In this particular case, their decision on the individual nature of the RKBA is bolstered by rather elementary linguistics, but that's irrelevant. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the Constitution dictates.

the 2nd amendment was phased out with the militia it is only scotus that grants gunnies any gun "rights"
what "rights" there are are a gift of scotus but even scotus said that they could be regulated

we change scotus the gun "rights" could be changed

are not GRANTED by gov't... they are simply to be protected FROM gov't. you totally miss the point of the document until you understand that point.

sP

and bear, no militia no 'right".
i understand the document you might want to take your own advice. this scotus gave you the "right" the next scotus can do what the constitution says - no militia no 2a "rights"

so... guess what...

sP

Their interpretation was that regardless of the militia clause, the "right to keep and bear arms" is ascribed to "the people" in the language of the amendment. Moreover, the language of the amendment grants nothing. The language is such that it places the RKBA as antecedent. That is, it recognizes the right as something that already exists, not something that the amendment creates.

Whether or not any of that is a good thing is obviously subject to debate. But to remove the RKBA from "the people" would require amending the Constitution. And quite probably a great deal of firepower...which is why it's enormously unlikely ever to be attempted.

this is not a debate this is what it says - and scotus(5 of them anyway), being a bought and paid for entity, will do as they are told.
hopefully the next scotus will rule according to the constitution. after that you may be allowed to buy them but it will not (as it is not )be considered a 'right"

I don't consider the language of the amendment to be such that it requires militia membership in order to possess the right to keep and bear arms. The proposition would have to be structured differently for that to be the case. As it stands, it cites the necessity of a militia as a reason to recognize a pre-existing right. Again, that might or might not be a desirable situation, but it's how the amendment is written.

but this one already has it in their mind what they BELIEVE it says. i am afraid it is effort lost. but thank you, anyway.

sP

I doubt we're going to come to any agreement on these points, but it's been a civil discussion...and given how the forum gets on any gun-related issue, I very much appreciate that.

other than the assumption that we're stupid (collective 'we're' of people who read and interpret the meaning as you suggest). as fas as RKBA discussions go, yes, it is incredibly tame!

ok, big thunder rolling in... time to shut down and unplug for a while...

sP

We may have to face the fact that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. If you read the text carefully, it seems the only people who should be guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms are members of the well regulated militia. Of course, some people argue everybody is automatically part of the militia, but that's ridiculous. The "militia" should be a group of citizens who organize themselves to guard the country against invasion by the Canadians. They would all have the same kinds of weapons, uniforms, etc. and they would all be tied together on a national level. And they would be subject to disciplinary action or expulsion for pulling stupid stunts like walking into a restaurant with loaded assault rifles. The 2nd Amendment does not need to be repealed, something that would be impossible anyway, but it does need to be interpreted more closely to its original intent. It was not written to allow a bunch of disgruntled malcontents to arm themselves like a small nation and scare the crap out of their fellow citizens with odd behavior. Odd behavior while armed, I should say.

yours is fringe interpretation.

I'm not arguing we should limit gun ownership to those who are "approved" militia members. I'm just pointing out the reference to "militia" does not give blanket approval for gun ownership by everybody who sees too many Dirty Harry movies. I guess I should have explained that. Sorry.

And this is only temporary and the person can have their right reinstated very easily simply by appealing the ruling. Only a tiny portion of the population every get adjudicated mentally incompetent by a judge. There are no mental, psychological exams require to posses a firearm.

must be determined trough due process in open court.

18 U.S. Code § 922 (d) (3):

"...is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));"

So is "nine dead in church shooting." Additionally, "20 dead grade school children" is an unfortunate title too. Seems to be quite a lot of misfortune... words and titles used being the least of it.

thus your opinion is CRAP.

The idea that the second amendment prevents gun control is a very recent right-wing invention. It never had anything to do with civilian gun ownership until a recent 5-4 supreme court decision with only right-wingers in favor.

There's no need to repeal the amendment. All that needs to happen is to get a non-right-wing majority on the court, so we can overturn Heller, along with Citizens United and a host of other harmful decisions that the Scalia-Thomas court has brought us.

AWB, registration, licenses for concealed carry - all perfectly constitutional. The only explicit right you have is to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That is what Heller was all about - the right to have a handgun in your home.

There are no real legal impediments to stricter gun control - your problem is lack of broad and passionate public support. Not enough people want what you want.

We basically have a choice, easy access to handguns, or saving tens of thousands of lives. And basically, the people who value guns more than human life are more dedicated than the rest of us.

You and I agree on nearly everything regarding gun control - the only two things I reject out of hand are registration and an AWB. But you would rather insult me instead of finding common ground. That's fine. There are other issues I can spend my time on.

who needs actual results when you can bask in the warm glow of moral superiority.

Shotguns and rifles? All they want.

CoP to look and see if he could still get one and that is what they told him. Handguns no, rifles and shotguns...all you want to.

That seems to imply they're allowed only to keep them for home defense.

Well it didn't work out for him, he wanted to get a handgun to take with him for travel. I was kind of shocked to learn he could have as many rifles and shotguns as he wanted...he left out the home defense part.

Even state felonies make one a prohibited person

Misread the post.

Probable cause? Search and seizure? Due process? Dissent?

What makes it a right. That a group of people that lived long before you were even born, during a time in this country where our cultures are so drastically different that there is hardly a single similarity between them. It's only a right because it was on the books before you were born. The US Constitution was never meant to be a lifeless, permanent document. It was meant to be amended, throughout time, when circumstances designated as such. When a "right" begins to infringe on other peoples right to live, then it's time for that "right" to go.

You validated my supposition that the Controllers will sacrifice all rights in the name of control.

And what you hold dear today is, by your own rules, can just as easily be dismissed.

Slavery was once Constitutionally protected in this country, but over the passage of time, reasonable minded people said that was no longer a "right" that should be protected. And yes I have no problem with bad laws on the books being revisited over time when it becomes clear those laws are bad and interfere with other peoples rights to live.

Rights in the constitution don't have an expiration date. If you have a problem with something in that document, propose a change. But if the proposal fails to get the votes...guess what, the status quo remains. That's how a democratic country based on the rule of law works. We are not a dictatorship where someone can just wave a hand and declare parts of the Constitution void because they think it's outdated.

I think most people know that.

According to your previous post such a right has an expiration date.

And the secessionists argued that abolition was a threat to their right to live.

I would argue we each have our rights to life and liberty and by extension those things necessary to secure those rights. I have a right to what I produce to support myself and family. I have a right to defend myself and my family.

Not coincidentally, one of the key factors in the Dred Scott decision centered on the notion that if slaves were deemed persons they would be entitled to bear arms thus making it impossible to hold them as slaves.

It's just it's not a right.

You can still read the books you want. It's just not a right.

By your rules.

You can keep arguing that but it is not true. If I take away your right to vote then immediately your liberty is encroached upon. Same with the 1st amendment. Taking away a true right such as freedom of speech or freedom to vote, is a mechanism by which other governments oppress people. I have never heard that because a person cannot own a gun that they are suddenly being oppressed. There are other ways to protect yourself and your family.

And if you do how should the people respond? With pleas and supplications?

No. The tyrant has made the first move.

The real problem is our culture of fear, hatred, and violence.

We need to reject violence at all levels.

I mean we have a president that speaks of the tragedy of innocent lives lost. And it is a tragedy, but how many innocent civil lives were lost in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many innocent lives are lost in drone strikes? I dont even know is anybody even counting anymore?

It is a complete failure of our education system. It is a complete failure of our political leaders that push war. It is a failure of our police force that choses violence instead of peace keeping. It is a failure of our media for deviding us and making us fear our neighbor. Who we need to blame for this and all violence is our society itself and the culture of fear and hate and the use of violence as a means to an end.

The leaders of this world need to lead by example of nonviolence. Unless we address the underlying issues that cause this violence guns will just be replace with another weapon.

Look up prohibited person, more than than just convicted felon as you so wrongly state. Like involuntary mentally committed, convicted of domestic abuse, drug users....

Those are facts

the wrong religion to keep the masses from looking their way. However, their reliable dividing tools are getting worn, and so the reckless love/hate of firearms has surged to become a new reliable dividing tool in their toolbox of power. Plus, firearms kill off a lot of the rabble, a bonus for them.

License to drive, vehicle are registered, vehicles are inspected in most states for safe operation, insurance is obtained in order to pay for damages, drivers have their eyesight tested when renewing drivers license, drivers are ticketed for disobeying driving laws, drivers are arrested for DUI, sometimes receiving prison terms, and then we look at guns and forget any reasonable responses.

I could care less about those who use guns responsibly or for defence. You lock up lunatics that hurt people, guns, bombs, butter knives, etc... It's a fairly simple equation.

Some people on here have a "take it all away to make the world better" mentality; naivety at it's worst.

That way the police can search everyone's homes and businesses and storage units without limit in order to find and confiscate all the guns. Then, everyone will be safe (except for people near all the shootouts that would occur).

And while they are at it, they should confiscate all the metal working tools, like CNCs, lathes, metallic 3-D printers, etc, that can be used to make new guns and gun parts.

The NSA can do their part as well, by monitoring the communications of all Americans in order to ferret out dissenters and black market sellers.

Moar police superpowers! Yay!

It is the price of freedom. I don't know that I want to curtail freedom though. There are places you can move to for that. Doesn'tean there are not things that can reduce these tragedies but a few people out of 330 million doesn't justify infringing on the masses IMHO.

Grammatically speaking, it does not.

to figure out how much eduation a person should have in order to own a fiearm. Should a high school diploma be the lowest level of education a person needs in order to own a gun? Some college? A B.S. or B.A.?