Like prohibition it's time to amend the second amendment.

[CK_John]

A move should be made to start the process. It's need to happen but as a tactic a move to repeal or amend the 2nd amendment should be made.

This could unravel the whole constitution but unless the Senate and House are scared into listening to the population they need a wakeup call.

[pintobean]

1. There is very little support for that.

It's not going to happen.

[CreekDog]

54. are you lying or don't you understand the chart you just posted?

the chart lists the MOST important issue, it does not say that the issues themselves aren't important, just that they aren't the MOST important.

try reading.

[pintobean]

58. I understand just fine

It's a high priority for 4% of Americans. That's people for and against gun control. Now, how much support do you think amending the second amendment is going to have?

Rather that looking for reasons to call someone stupid, or a liar, try thinking.

[apocalypsehow]

73. Given the well-documented track record, I'd say Curtain #1 is where the answer lies.

Though I wouldn't rule out #2, either, it's just that more often #1 has been brazenly engaged in on repeated occasions.

[pintobean]

106. ...

[DrDan]

2. amend the 2nd amendment? we can't pass the most minor of gun control legislation.congress i

congress is in the pockets of the gun lobby.

[graham4anything]

21. But SCOTUS the good ones, are not. Reinterpet the 2nd with a new SCOTUS in 5 to 10 years

[former9thward]

62. I guess reading legal decisions is not your strong point.

In the Heller decision all nine Justices said the 2nd amendment confers an individual right. So I guess you will need nine new appointments to get your point of view across. Good Luck!

[graham4anything]

64. Sonia and Elena were NOT on the court then.

and the other two liberal justices are going to retire in the next few years.

Therefore, your statement is not correct. The two are a given.


It will take one or two of the other five to change.

[former9thward]

80. Try again.

Sotomayor was on the court in the McDonald decision which followed and the same legal theories were put forward. So you will have to get rid of her also. Can you name one legal scholar who holds your point of view? I know of none. Good luck in your search!

[graham4anything]

83. Justice Sotomayer will be a good vote. She is the best justice since Thurgood Marshall died.

The NRA is going to be gone. So will guns.

And nothing can stop the evolution from happening.

BTW, no one will admit it til it happens.

[former9thward]

86. She signed on to the individual right also.

She could have filed a separate dissent if she didn't believe that. So yes, you will have to get rid of that "good" vote. Good Luck!

[graham4anything]

87. One doesn't reveal their hand til the time a win is known. See Gay marriage.

What didn't work then works later.

end of circular arguement. Last response.

[Tender to the Bone]

65. Heller needs a review. Supreme Court can order a review of any existing laws.

and a President can order a review of that said law.

Heller is wrong, and everyone knows it.

[Atlatl]

66. How is Heller wrong?

[Tender to the Bone]

71. Figure it out, gun lover

Take it to RKBA. Heller is wrong, and the Second Amendment does not give the individual rights to bear arms. Only the militia has the right to bear arms.

[dairydog91]

79. That argument failed to persuade a single justice last time it was tried.

The Heller debate was about the extent of the individual right, and whether it did or did not protect that individual right when it was exercised purely for self-defense by non-militia members.

[pipoman]

89. Hmmm,

then why the fuck isn't it written that way?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Nobody who matters holds this decades long facade put out there by wishful thinkers with any esteem...it is a dead argument..

[Lizzie Poppet]

95. That's simply flat-out wrong.

The language of the amendment simply doesn't work that way. I've explained this in detail in other threads (and haven't had a single substantive counterargument presented, only personal insults and teh equivalent of "nuh-uh!&quot , so I'm not going to bother re-stating the reasons. It's 101-level linguistic analysis, frankly.

[X_Digger]

101. No amendment 'gives' anyone anything, that's true.

The rights pre-exist the constitution and bill of rights.

Some of our rights aren't even in the constitution or bill of rights (see 'right to travel'.)

[dairydog91]

68. SCOTUS can "order a review"?

Really? That's an, ahem, interesting view of what the Court has power to do.

[Tender to the Bone]

72. Congressional review, sorry...

Heller points out that it continues to violate the Second Amendment. Easily.

[dairydog91]

76. What does that accomplish?

Congress could "review" something, but it can't "review" away a SCOTUS holding about the meaning of the Constitution.

[former9thward]

75. No, a president can't order a review.

Stay out of law school. It won't help you.

[CK_John]

69. That is why it is time to move the process to the states. Start the process.

[pipoman]

96. Amen..

Enable NICS for private sales and states will likely enact requirement for checks. Keep it like it is, for states to pass legislation requires they set up their own system..cost prohibitive and redundant..

[Eleanors38]

147. Some of us "gun lovers" have advocated this for some time!

But the banners and culture warriors called this an NRAtalkingPoint™, and went back to the chanting. Perhaps they don't want to face a hard fact: Gun control advocates don't have the troops on the ground, a constant flow of money from millions of activists, and the depth of support to obtain the first two. That is why they want sweeping central government laws or edicts because there is little vitality in their outlook once you get beyond elites and their institutional positions.

[Yo_Mama]

3. They did listen to the population

And amending the Second would have even less success. Amending the Constitution has the highest bar - it's far easier to pass a law.

I have to say that I think this bill was not a particularly good one.

A small minority of the population is very concerned about tightening gun laws compared to all those concerned with the economy, unemployment, SS, Medicare et al. Legislators had a lot to lose and not much to gain.

My suggestion is to work in your state if you are unhappy with the gun laws there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. 80-90% want background checks

I guess that's a minority.

[Yo_Mama]

13. No it is not a minority

It's just that there wasn't just a "pure" background check bill out there. I think senators could successfully have defended their vote for a pure background check bill. I suspect this was sabotage, but then I'm not very politically astute.

And tightening controls just isn't a very high priority for most people. You have to realize that. If most the people were banging on them to do it, they'd do it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Yup, it's a minority

Double

What these guys are afraid off, you said it, not politically astute, is their flank

[Yo_Mama]

23. Flank?

Now I feel even less politically astute.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. You vote for gun control

You are going to have a tea party type challenging you on gun rights. That candidate will receive donations from the NRA.

Oy..

[Yo_Mama]

37. Oh, thanks

Yes, I think the "passion" of the support for those against various gun control measures was strong.

But that doesn't extend to background checks. I think the reason the background check bill didn't pass is because of the reciprocity thing. Unless I am misunderstanding this, and after all the misinformation in the papers over the Boston bombing, it's possible, the reciprocity thing would have overridden state laws about guns.

There is not majority support for that. I think the senators deliberately set it up this way, so everyone could explain/defend their cloture vote as convenient.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. No, the problem is that the NRA s fighting any and all

Background checks. They used to support them, but there are organizations to their right.

[X_Digger]

42. Reciprocity and the BG amendment were separate, and were voted on separately.

Now, there could have been some vote 'trading' going on, I suppose, but they were actually separate.

[Yo_Mama]

49. Thank you very much! n/t

[geek tragedy]

8. They listened to the 10% of gun worshippers who oppose any restriction

on the ability of mass murderers to massacre children.

[Lawlbringer]

4. Please flame me if need be

But I was always under the impression that the Bill of Rights couldn't be changed, only interpreted by SCOTUS.

[geek tragedy]

6. Bill of Rights can be completely repealed by amendment, nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. The Bill of rights, like any other part of the Constitution, can be amended

using the process set forth in the Constitution to amend the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights were, themselves, amendments.

[CK_John]

11. The 18th admendment was modified by the 19th admendmend to allow booze.

As far as i know the 2nd admendement is just an admendment and could be changed.

The states can petition to start an admendment procedure.

[Yo_Mama]

18. Entire Constitution can be amended as per Constitution

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Actually a majority of the Senate listened to the people.

It is a pitty that the majority doesn't rule there.

[geek tragedy]

9. Maybe if we let the south secede that could happen. nt

[CokeMachine]

27. Maybe if we let Urban Centers secede the number of murders would decrease? nt

[geek tragedy]

36. So would the nation's average IQ and education level. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. Because there are no high IQ or well-educated people anywhere but Urban Centers.

Amiright?

[geek tragedy]

50. There are some.

But areas that vote for people like James Inhofe and Sam Brownback in landslide numbers don't do it by fluke.

[CokeMachine]

52. Probably not a very large change.

Education does not equal IQ. There's book smart and really smart. Where I work now we consider a Masters Degrees equal to what used to be a Bachelors degree. Hell we even prefer vocational colleges due to technical knowledge -- lots less training and much more motivation. Education in this country is in a sorry state so education level doesn't mean much anymore.

Take Care

[Lizzie Poppet]

60. And much of the West, big chunks of the Midwest, a lot of upper New England...

See where I'm going with this? It's a distinct minority of states that would favor repeal of the second amendment (if in fact any do...). If the Mid-Atlantic states, Illinois, and California want such a repeal, let them secede.

In all seriousness, I expect the nation as currently constituted to last no more than another 20 years. It'll split up into regional polities by then.

[geek tragedy]

61. Yeah, most of those Senators voted for the awful Cornyn amendment, which

would have allowed anyone with a gun permit in the country from brandishing it in New York and Illinois.

For some reason they don't think there are enough dead children in Chicago.

[former9thward]

70. How many murders took place last year by people with CC permits?

I believe the number is zero.

[geek tragedy]

78. Trayvon Martin was murdered by a cc holder.

CC holders have murdered hundreds of people since 2007

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/murders-by-concealed-hand_b_632278.html

By all means, support the "George Zimmerman can carry a loaded weapon in every city in the country" law.

I'm sure it will save lives. Well, no, it will lead to deaths, but at least the guns will be safe, according to Team Ar15.com

[former9thward]

84. Even your own link does not say "hundreds", unless you call 175 "hunreds".

But go ahead and exaggerate if it helps you. And of course it included suicides -- so they were murdering themselves. In the five years they studied they came up with a number about equal to Chicago's murder rate in a month.

[geek tragedy]

85. You're right--allowing George Zimmerman to walk into any black neighborhood in the country

with a loaded gun is awesome legislating.

[hrmjustin]

105. Zimmerman should be in jail!

That is where he should walk.

[Lizzie Poppet]

92. You're 0-for-2.

"Yeah, most of those Senators voted for the awful Cornyn amendment, which would have allowed anyone with a gun permit in the country from brandishing it in New York and Illinois."

False. "Brandishing" has a very specific (legal) definition, and it woudl remain a crime regardless of whether national permit reciprocity is enacted or not.

"For some reason they don't think there are enough dead children in Chicago."

Strawman argument. Do you have even a shred of verifiable evidence that anyone thinks that, to say nothing of these Senators? Slander does nothing to help your cause...

[elleng]

12. Such a good idea,

considering the success we have with legislation discouraging gun and ammunition supplies.

Article V olf the Constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

74. The key words in that is

"two thirds of both Houses ".


Without having 2/3's of EACH house, one can forget it. Look at the makeup of each house right now.

To add to the sarcasm, "We got a winner with this idea"!


Till more liked minded are in both houses, till more people that say they want this get more active and vocal than the smaller numbers that oppose this, we are looking at a pipe dream.

[elleng]

77. Right, thanks Lady.

We've got HUGE work to do, no sarcasm.

[graham4anything]

14. A new SCOTUS in the next five years can reinterpet the 2nd like it has been in past.

It can be done through SCOTUS once there is a new court with more Elena and Sonia's on it.

If we can dream, in 2018 President Obama nominated and confirmed (like Pres. Taft did)
and he can be the one to write the new decision.

All it takes is to interpret the word MILITIA different.
It is really not that hard.

[LittleBlue]

15. Don't begin any proposal with "like prohibition"

Which was one of the most spectacular lawmaking failures in US history.

[Eleanors38]

153. The most addictive political approach in the U.S. is "prohibition."

[X_Digger]

16. *snort* Good luck with that.

eta: And even if, by some unicorn-farting magical triple-rainbow chance that did pass, that wouldn't remove the right protected by the second.

It would just then become an unenumerated right protected by the ninth amendment, and various state constitutions.

[CK_John]

46. That's why the 2nd should be amend to allow only reasonable restrictions andstrong background check

[apocalypsehow]

51. Note the language that poster uses about "unenumerated" rights, and references to the 9th amendment:

they are right-wing talking points that are routinely found on conservative websites. Google it and you'll see it brings up two kinds of websites (besides definitional ones from Wikipedia and a few law schools): right wing websites peddling NRA garbage, and liberal forums debunking same.

It's very telling.

[dairydog91]

63. Hint...abortion is also an "unenumerated right".

So is the right to consensual sex between adults, or the right to purchase contraception. I suppose you could be really persnickety and say that they're derived from the 14th, not the 9th, but they're certainly not explicitly enumerated rights found directly in the text.

[apocalypsehow]

67. Hint...baloney. Choice and contraception have ZERO to do with fondling machine guns, or strutting

through Wal Mart with a pistol perched in your pants.

But nice try.

[X_Digger]

99. No dear, I'm disabusing a poster of the notion that repealing an amendment removes a right.

Many misguided people seem to assume that the bill of rights *grants* rights.

Hint: it doesn't.

The right to travel? Does not appear in the constitution or bill of rights, yet it exists just the same.

[apocalypsehow]

104. Oh yes you are - and we have in this latest reply more fun with right-wing memes:

"Many misguided people seem to assume that the bill of rights *grants* rights."

^^^The above is a common (false) meme and talking point that shows up repeatedly on right-wing websites.^^^

Hint: you're not fooling about anyone, "dear."

[X_Digger]

107. LOL, if you say so.

Did you really never study the Enlightenment? Locke? Rousseau? You know, the philosophers who informed the guys who set up our government?

All it really takes is reading the Declaration of Independence or the preamble to the Bill of Rights..

"endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.. that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

http://billofrights.org/

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Abuse of whose powers? Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom?

The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document.

Where does the right to travel emanate from?

[apocalypsehow]

111. Yeah, I say so - but more importantly, the *FACTS* make it so. But keep having fun spreading RW

talking points and memes. That stuff catches up eventually.

[X_Digger]

113. Interesting, you didn't actually address anything I said..

Care to elaborate?

Heck, read Federalist #84-

Hamilton was wary of the bill of rights, because it might be used as a pretense for limiting rights- powers that the government did not possess..

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

[apocalypsehow]

116. Asked & answered. n/t.

[X_Digger]

117. Link? Or will you just start regurgitating nonsense in every reply now? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

119. Asked & answered. Use Bing if you are unable/unwilling to maneuver yourself through Google. n/t.

[X_Digger]

120. As expected. Dodge. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

122. As expected: feigning inability to operate a browser + search engine. n/t.

[X_Digger]

125. Keanu's got nothing on you. That's a matrix-worthy dodge. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

124. Keep having fun spreading NRA talking points & memes, BTW. That stuff has a way of catching up. n/t.

[X_Digger]

126. Ahh, the other tactic.. reply to the same post multiple times..

.. in the hopes that your respondent doesn't notice, and you can claim victory.

Bravo.

(Not really.)

[apocalypsehow]

129. "...claim victory." <---That's some funny stuff, there.

I should have bought stock in the company that makes Cheetos years ago: I keep forgetting our NRA internet keyboard warriors consider posting NRA talking points and memes day and night on discussion forums to be the equivalent of combat, just like real soldiers. All from the safety of Mom's basement, of course....



Funny stuff.

[X_Digger]

131. And the inevitable ad hominem. There's the hattrick. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

132. Thanks for the (predictable) laughs: keep having fun spreading those NRA talking points & memes.

It'll catch up eventually.

[X_Digger]

134. And the bonus smiley-cavalcade! I forget, is that double bonus points or triple? n/t

[X_Digger]

138. And are you going to come back to this days later and repeat something to get the last word? LOL! nt

[apocalypsehow]

139. "And are you going to come back to this days later and repeat something to get the last word?"

^^^ Ahhh, the things NRA keyboard warriors worry about from Cheeto Central.

[X_Digger]

140. Oh, I just know your playbook, making sure I check off all the tic marks. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

141. Sure you are. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

142. ^^^Check this out folks^^^ More fun, funny stuff. "Ma! I need reinforcements on chip bowl 3...

...am heavily engaged on GD in DU showing them their librul's what-fer!!!"

[X_Digger]

143. Ooh, a combo move.. smiley cavalcade + multiple replies to the same post, plus ^^^^.

So predictable, so disappointing.

[apocalypsehow]

144. The reinforcements must have arrived - the eternal Cheeto bowl is reloaded. Keyboard engaged!

[X_Digger]

145. *yawn*

Ready to back up your contention that rights are 'granted' by the bill of rights with something more than, 'google it!' yet?

Found the source of the right to travel yet?

Let's make this interesting, just to stave off boredom.

[apocalypsehow]

146. Now a frustrated "*yawn*," followed by more basement grenadier maneuvers. Textbook. n/t.

[X_Digger]

148. Apparently not. Ah well. I had hope, you dashed it.

Feel free to come back with something - anything - substantive. Til then, go ahead and get the last word.

[apocalypsehow]

149. More fun with basement gunnies. Still not fooling anybody, but plenty-a-laughs all the same.

[apocalypsehow]

151. "And are you going to come back to this days later and repeat something to get the last word?"

^^^ Fun Stuff, Redux. Repeatedly.^^^

[pipoman]

108. If this has been debunked

how about debunking it rather than sputtering about with accusations of nonsense?

[apocalypsehow]

110. It has been "debunked." Repeatedly. Google is your friend - try it. n/t.

[pipoman]

114. It hasn't been debunked then?

Can't tell everyone why he's wrong? Only have insults and accusations? Yeah...that's exactly why these things fail..

[apocalypsehow]

115. It has been "debunked." Repeatedly. Google is your friend - try it. n/t.

[pipoman]

121. That's what I (and virtually everyone with an open mind reading this) thought...n/t

[apocalypsehow]

123. Sure. n/t.

[SoCalDem]

19. Too late for that

There are so many ruby-red states these days..No matter what, they will rebel against sanity...just on principle (their misguided contrarian principle).

[CK_John]

28. Only 38 states needed to petition to amend. Start the process in the states that just passed new gun

laws in the past several weeks.

We only need to start the process to scare the shit out off the sane part of Congress. The tea bagerrs may go along so to wreck the constitution.

[slackmaster]

32. Yes, and only 13 states are needed to kill an amendment petition.

We tried to pass an Equal Rights Amendment for over 40 years and failed when the GOP went full stupid.

[kudzu22]

57. 13 states block it

I don't see any of these going for it:

AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, KS, KY, MS, MT, NC, NE, NV, SC, TN, UT, WV, WY

And you'd need 6 of them plus every other state in the union.

[pipoman]

112. Nor would

ND, SD, OR, WA, VT, MO, IA, WI, MI, OH, IN, ME...and probably others..

[WinniSkipper]

150. I don't think you would get a single State. nt

[TimberValley]

20. I thought Prohibition failed?

Just saying.

[CK_John]

31. That's my point the 18th started it and the 19th repealed it. Start the processp

to repeal or amend the 2nd and rattle their cage (Congress).

[sarisataka]

53. The 19th Amendment

Established women's suffrage. It was the 21st that repealed the 18th and gave states the power to prohibit alcohol

[moondust]

81. Wrong. Machine guns are prohibited.

I'm curious why the NRA isn't fighting to bring back private ownership of machine guns, bazookas, and field artillery. Any thoughts?

[X_Digger]

100. What makes you think people can't own machineguns or bazookas?

You can, they're just damned expensive and require lots of paperwork.

[Fla_Democrat]

22. How did that work out?

[CokeMachine]

24. What's your proposed changes to the 2A?

I need a starting point to see where you are coming from.

[CK_John]

35. Just start the process and Congress will get very reasonable. Take action

fill in the details along the way.

[CokeMachine]

45. Thanks but --

I don't believe you'd like the outcome. That would open it up to 33-34 states determining what will happen, regardless of population. A large majority of the states (not population wise) in th US are very pro 2A and may even make it more permissive.

Have a good evening.

[Travelman]

59. Doesn't work that way

You can't just send an Amendment in that says "let's change the Second Amendment." Well, I suppose you could, but it wouldn't go anywhere.

The language of the Amendment has to be approved by 2/3 of the states' legislatures, then it gets submitted to Congress, and then the states have to ratify it.

[CK_John]

88. Not so. The states can call for a constitutional convention without stating an agenda.

[Union Scribe]

156. "start the process and Congress will get very reasonable"

I appreciate hardcore optimism as much as the next guy, but what you're saying is inconceivable in a number of directions at once.

[kenny blankenship]

25. How about we tax guns?

SCOTUS can't object to that.

Want to own that gun, be it a bolt action rifle, a revolver, a large capacity magazine assault weapon, a shotgun or whatever, then you have to pay the annual Federal tax on it. Yes, we admit it is rather steep, and so is the Federal tax on all ammunition sales and gun sales. Very, very steep! In fact, you'd be kind of a dumbass not to get rid of your firearms by either turning them in to the govt (they pay a bounty) or else selling them to a greater dumbass.

What - you say that you didn't register your gun(s) for tax purposes? Oops, go to jail! Now as a felon, you can never legally own a gun again.

[CokeMachine]

33. So you only want the 1%ers to be armed -- what could go wrong with that? nt

[kenny blankenship]

41. The 1%ers have the US Army and NATO and you have pop guns

You aren't going to win that one no matter what, Field Marshall. At most you could turn the US into Iraq or Somalia for a while. What an achievement that will be. In the meantime, while you're patiently waiting for your "Final Showdown" with the eevul gummint, America bleeds daily from its plague of guns.

[CokeMachine]

56. Swing and Miss.

I don't go for that overthrowing the gubmit thing. Please try a little harder to read what I wrote. Let's see, there are hunters (you, only rich hunters), sports shooters (you, only rich sports shooters), self defense (you, only rich people should be able to defend themselves and family).

Have a good evening

[kenny blankenship]

82. And in your plan, tens of thousands will continue to die every year

as a consequence of your preferred hobby and recreation - and you think that's OK. You don't have to ever change. They're just a little collateral damage and an acceptable price that others will pay for your tradition of fun and your illusion of safety. Others might not be the only ones to pay. Your family is in much greater danger from your guns than from whatever you believe you're protecting them from.

The 99% are much better served by ridding themselves of the plague of guns, staying alive and ratcheting down the levels of fear and violence which guns bring and maintain, than they could ever be by joining you in your gun fueled survivalist fantasies.

[CokeMachine]

137. Cool story Bro!!

You're anger scares me. Are you anti-choice? Most of the gun deaths in the USA are suicides -- isn't that a choice? Good Dog you make as much sense as you think you think you do. Calm down!!

I don't have the plan you attribute to me. Should I put on some Renolds Wrap so you can't read my mind?

In my plan everyone can choose to end their lives anyway they want. I do understand that authortiarians know what's best for those less educated or smart.

Again, you are attributing me more than I said. Calm down and have a berverage -- just don't drive. OK

[badtoworse]

90. Poll taxes were used to discourage certain people from exercising their right to vote

They were found to be unconstitutional. Other than seeking to suppress exercise of a different civil right, your idea is no different and would likely suffer the same fate.

[Eleanors38]

154. Problems with this...

Guns, ammo, motorboat fuels, etc. are already taxed under Pitman-Robertson up to 11% for purposes of funding conservation efforts. This is a tax agreed upon by the great majority of outdoor sportspersons since they knew what it was for.

A tax simply imposed to curtail sales of firearms & ammunition would be seen by the courts for what it is: A clearly intentional way of infringing on the Second. This is why so many prayer/meditation-in-school laws are slam dunked routinely. They can see the intent of the backers of such.

Interestingly, the old poll tax scheme was eliminated by passage of a Constitutional amendment -- a powerful precedent for trashing the type of tax you propose. Can you find the amendment?

[Logical]

29. Read the rules required to do it. Get back to me. n-t

[CK_John]

40. see post 12 or Article V.

[reformist2]

30. When legislation fails, it's usually not a good idea to propose more extreme legislation.

[Dpm12]

34. Yeah, good luck with that

n/t

[William769]

39. The 21st Amendment restored a freedom that was taken away.

Amending the Second Amendment would take away a freedom that has been there almost from the start.

I don't see it happening since it takes a 2/3 majority.

EDIT TO ADD: When the when the Eighteenth Amendment was passed look at the havoc that was thrown on the United States. Just saying.

[CK_John]

43. 2/3 to start a petition, 3/4 to pass. My point is to start the process, not try to

determine the outcome before anything is done. That may the problem with this country at this point in our history.

[slackmaster]

47. By all means start the process, but don't be surprised if the results disappoint you.

[Riftaxe]

44. Good luck in your new

temperance movement...don't forget the hymnal songs.

[Codeine]

55. Support for the repeal of the 2A is less than insignificant. nt

[madinmaryland]

91. FUCK THE NRA and their fucking sycophants. ARGO....

[JVS]

93. Any party that makes a move on amendments 1 though 10 will reap terrible electoral consequences.

It just isn't in the cards. You'd be better off working on the local and state levels, as well as making the criminal justice system even tougher on crimes committed with guns (mandatory long sentences, etc.)

[Raine]

94. Not going to happen, now or ever. nt

[Throd]

98. Amend or repeal?

[CK_John]

102. Either, we just need to start the damm process to skake up Congress.

Start getting states to send a petition to amend the 2nd admendment. Don't worry about the details.

[Throd]

109. Actually, I will worry about the details quite a bit.

[CK_John]

128. It usually takes about 7yrs to get 38 states to petition, plenty of time to work on details.

[Throd]

130. "Hey, let's repeal or amend constitutional rights, we'll sweat the details later." Me no like.

[onenote]

136. Wrong.

There are two ways to amend the constitution. The first way (and the only way that has been used in nation's history) is for Congress to approve the amendment by a 2/3 vote of both houses and then send it for ratification by 3/4 of the states. The states don't get to "work on details" after the fact. The amendment that is approved by Congress at the start of the process is the amendment that the states consider.

The other way, never used, is for 2/3 of the states to call on Congress to commence a Constitutional Convention -- a process that many Constitutional scholars view as terrifyingly risky since it could, in theory, open the entire constitution to revision. The changes would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, but this process has never been used and its almost impossible to imagine in being used.

The fact is that the legislation that was defeated today -- a terrible result -- was constitutional. An amendment wasn't needed. But 60 votes were in the Senate and a majority would be required in the House and while the first should have been achievable, it wasn't, and the second was never going to happen. For legislation that didn't require the Constitution to change. The notion that we are anywhere close to revising or repealing the Second amendment by a 2/3 Congressional vote and votes of 3/4 of the states, when we can't get 60 votes in the Senate or a simple majority in the House for a change in the law that is constitutional, is pure fantasy.

We are far better working, as the President indicated, on electing legislators that will make changes that don't require a Constitutional amendment or in getting states to pass common sense gun laws that are within current constitutional boundaries, than in some quixotic quest to rewrite the Constitution.

[CK_John]

127. Read article V to see how and who can change the constitution. Not POTUS or Congress.

[arcane1]

135. Since nobody is even attempting "to take away guns" your argument is bullshit.

[geomon666]

152. As much as I would love for this to happen.

It'll never happen in my lifetime. At this point, I'm pretty sure it would take almost apocalyptic event to get even close to amending or repealing the second ammendment. I'm talking like an Escape From New York type of future, just complete lawlessness in the streets. And we're getting there.

[Eleanors38]

155. Actually, crime rates have been dropping for years. nt

[CK_John]

157. Sorry you missed my point. Just starting the process will be enough to get

Congress to get their houses in order.

We just need 1 state to issue a petition to get the ball rolling and Congress will realize the people have other options.