Would you support a Constitutional amendment that limited the 2nd Amendment? (Imagine you got to waive a magic wand. forget about logistics) Something you crafted (or at least someone you agreed with crafted) so it might not be the same limitations your neighbor would want. But is there any limitation on the 2nd Amendment you could support?
Post by W.T.Faulkner on Jun 14, 2016 23:07:22 GMT -5
I like how we can repeal an amendment banning alcohol within twelve years of its passing but we're still stuck with this crap-ass, vague 2nd Amendment.
GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER, AMERICA.
Edit: Let's secretly replace the 2nd Amendment with the text of the 19th Amendment, and when someone says "2nd Amendment rights," we just yell back, "THANKS FOR AFFIRMING MY RIGHT TO VOTE, MOTHAFUCKA!"
Because you know they don't even know what it actually says.
I don't necessarily think it needs to be repealed. I think the Supreme Court needs to go back to the proper, original interpretation that it had for the first 200+ years (well-regulated), not the post-1970s NRA (shall not be infringed) interpretation (since the NRA was actually in favor of gun control until then.)
Post by claudiajean on Jun 15, 2016 4:52:41 GMT -5
I don't necessarily want to eliminate guns, but there need to be way stricter limits. Limit type, ammunition, etc. I'm possibly in favor of a repeal, but I would favor trying REAL reform first.
No one needs these high powered guns except the military and maybe some highly specially trained units of the police force.
I don't necessarily think it needs to be repealed. I think the Supreme Court needs to go back to the proper, original interpretation that it had for the first 200+ years (well-regulated), not the post-1970s NRA (shall not be infringed) interpretation (since the NRA was actually in favor of gun control until then.)
so much this. The NRA took a turn and that's the biggest issue here. And now I think it's so much more about $$$ anyhow than it actually is about guns.
I don't necessarily think it needs to be repealed. I think the Supreme Court needs to go back to the proper, original interpretation that it had for the first 200+ years (well-regulated), not the post-1970s NRA (shall not be infringed) interpretation (since the NRA was actually in favor of gun control until then.)
so much this. The NRA took a turn and that's the biggest issue here. And now I think it's so much more about $$$ anyhow than it actually is about guns.
Post by MixedBerryJam on Jun 15, 2016 5:24:24 GMT -5
If it was an actual magic wand that could perform magic, yes, I'd repeal completely. As that's not going to happen, I'd restrict automatic/semiautomatic, tighten up background checks (including private sales between family members), keep the paper trail permanently electronically, longer waiting period, tracking of ammunition purchases. A couple of other things that are slipping my mind because it's early. Required training, maybe, and since we're talking magic wand level changes, including maybe a morgue or er component in the training. I'd make those kinds of hunts where you pen up the animal then release the latch and shoot them while they're fleeing, since we're waving our magic wand, I'd make them fucking illegal, too.
Absolutely, yes. Honesty, I do not understand why people are so against gun control. If you are a responsible gun owner why do you care if there are more limitations?
Yes. I wish we could abolish private ownership of guns completely, perhaps with very limited and regulated exceptions for people who hunt as a food source.
I would much rather limit the right to bear arms to the people that might need them for their job, and limit their possession to the job. Military, police, etc. and then only as needed.
Post by thebreakfastclub on Jun 15, 2016 5:47:18 GMT -5
I live in an area where deer hunting is popular. It's maybe a 3 week rifle season.
It's necessary for conservation and the health of the population.
It is an important food source for a decent amount of people, those who hunt and also use food bank donations from hunters. They get through a few months with venison in the freezer.
I live in an area where deer hunting is popular. It's maybe a 3 week rifle season.
It's necessary for conservation and the health of the population.
It is an important food source for a decent amount of people, those who hunt and also use food bank donations from hunters. They get through a few months with venison in the freezer.
I live in an area where deer hunting is popular. It's maybe a 3 week rifle season.
It's necessary for conservation and the health of the population.
It is an important food source for a decent amount of people, those who hunt and also use food bank donations from hunters. They get through a few months with venison in the freezer.
...and?
I'm saying I support ownership of guns for hunting.
Post by lemoncupcake on Jun 15, 2016 6:15:01 GMT -5
Is love guns to disappear, but that's impossible. I'll settle for an amendment limiting ammo and weapon type, stronger background checks and waiting periods.
I have never felt the need to own an assault rifle. I can't even think of a good reason for a normal civilian to need one. Maybe we should all just have muskets like the founding fathers.
Of course! At the very least there should be a total ban on assault type weapons and ammunition, a thorough background check, including mental health issues, complete ban of sales at gun fairs, restrictions on being a licenced dealer and generally making sure that a gun can never be an impulse buy.