s/o Would you support an amendment to the Constitution

[sonrisa]

clarifying and limiting the second amendment?

[toepick]

Helll yes.

[joshlyman]

God yes.

[Jalapeñomel]

Yes, but I highly doubt that would ever happen.

[elenetxu]

Yes.

[WOT?*]

Just to add: what the hell is so unclear with "for a well-regulated militia" anyway? Carrying long-guns into restaurants "just because you can" isn't all that regulated or necessary.

[wambam]

Jun 10, 2014 0:27:48 GMT -5 Stan said:

Jun 10, 2014 0:21:26 GMT -5 nicbreeful said:

Yes. As someone that owns a gun, I fully support changes to the 2nd amendment.

Same.

X3

[underwaterrhymes]

Yes.

I'll even go so far as to say I think it's irresponsible if we don't.

[aliciar6]

depends on what these clarifications and limits were. Some might make sense, others maybe something already limited and based on statistics not an issue with the type of crimes and violence we see. But I'm leaning close to no, I'd rather see people stop being so stubborn on either side of the issue and realize there needs to be some federal wide common sense regulations in place.

[underwaterrhymes]

Jun 10, 2014 5:47:23 GMT -5 aliciar6 said:

depends on what these clarifications and limits were. Some might make sense, others maybe something already limited and based on statistics not an issue with the type of crimes and violence we see. But I'm leaning close to no, I'd rather see people stop being so stubborn on either side of the issue and realize there needs to be some federal wide common sense regulations in place.

Huh?

[aliciar6]

Jun 10, 2014 5:49:33 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

Jun 10, 2014 5:47:23 GMT -5 aliciar6 said:

depends on what these clarifications and limits were. Some might make sense, others maybe something already limited and based on statistics not an issue with the type of crimes and violence we see. But I'm leaning close to no, I'd rather see people stop being so stubborn on either side of the issue and realize there needs to be some federal wide common sense regulations in place.

Huh?

what would the clarifications and limits be that one would like to see? 

If by limitations we are talking: you can only own weapons of "xxx" class and for hunting purposes only and you may only own X number of weapons, then not so much.  

Or no owning fully automatic weapons, then no one has been paying attention to the fact that the people who have a class III firearms license and own the types of weapons that fall under the NFA of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, The firearm owners protection act of 1986 (bans the sale of new machine guns to civilians after the enactment date), the 1989 ban eneacted by George Bush by exectuvie order...the people who own these guns aren't going out committing crimes and the legal ones you can buy are very very very expensive and hard to find; there are approximately 250,000 legally transferable ones that fall into this category currently registered by the ATF, about 1/2 owned by civilians.   2 legally owned fully auto firearms have been used in crimes since 1934.

Though the Gun Control act of 1968 with it's sporting clause is prohibiting the import of US M1 Garand's that are a 70 year old weapon that mostly collectors want and are heavy and not weapons you will see on a crime spree...but because it's a military weapon, the import of it, even though they were US weapons from the Korean war, is illegal. 

so certain limitations I don't see the point of since the current regulations we have in place are working quite well.  
 

[aliciar6]

Jun 10, 2014 5:57:57 GMT -5 gravytrain225 said:

Jun 10, 2014 5:47:23 GMT -5 aliciar6 said:

depends on what these clarifications and limits were. Some might make sense, others maybe something already limited and based on statistics not an issue with the type of crimes and violence we see. But I'm leaning close to no, I'd rather see people stop being so stubborn on either side of the issue and realize there needs to be some federal wide common sense regulations in place.

Statistics and common sense show that what we have isn't working.

I never said what we had was working only that certain aspects of it were working.  you don't see crimes with legally owned full auto weapons thanks to all the regulations in place that don't infringe on the 2nd amendment.  that is an aspect that works and makes sense.   


We also have a people issue not just a gun issue.  both need to be addressed.  There is more chance of these things being addressed if the gun nuts didn't hear "gun control" and think "they are coming to take my weapons, must buy all that I can now and protest" and the other side wasn't like "no one needs guns"

there is a further people issue that comes from what I feel is a lack of respect for life, I don't think people care or fully appreciate the consequences of their actions and are too hasty in action.  And not just with guns.  take away guns, yes you get less gun crime, but it doesn't solve the whole issue. 

so what clarifications and limitations need to be made to the 2nd amendment?

[Kristinmo]

Absolutely.

[themoneytree]

Unpopular opinion but I would prefer to see a full ban.
I know it's probably not realistic here though because too many people would fight to protect their stash.

I would support a full ban on concealed carry guns with high penalties for non compliance.

I see no reason for machine gun type firearms being out in the public at all. 2 crimes committed with them is 2 too many. Total ban.

If guns must remain legal I would want there to be a total ban on removing them from your own property.

[kristie]

Absolutely

[eb777888]

Yes.

[happyholiday]

Of course. But, 'murica.

[noodle]

Yes.

[flamingeaux]

Jun 10, 2014 6:51:08 GMT -5 themoneytree said:

Unpopular opinion but I would prefer to see a full ban.
I know it's probably not realistic here though because too many people would fight to protect their stash.

I would support a full ban on concealed carry guns with high penalties for non compliance.

I see no reason for machine gun type firearms being out in the public at all. 2 crimes committed with them is 2 too many. Total ban.

If guns must remain legal I would want there to be a total ban on removing them from your own property.

This can not happen.  Hunters need to be able to transport their guns, in order to keep certain populations of wildlife in check, and also feed their families.  Do you know how many accidents would happen when people hit deer, or hogs?  A small car, like a smart car or mini cooper, colliding with a full grown deer would not end well for either party.

I would be okay with psychological exams for owners, and with sellers and owners having to register ammunition.

[spitforspat]

I can't get behind limiting change because there might be deer overpopulation. Like hunters are the only ones able to do anything about that?

[melindafelinda]

Absolutely. There is nothing that makes me want to move out of the country more than the tremendous amount of gun violence in the US.

[iammalcolmx]

I think we as a society have proven we cannot be responsible with guns. Sorry but Newtown did me in, I am tired of this crap.

[lilafowler]

You'll pry my super soaker gun from my cold, wet hands...

[cville]

Hell, man, at this juncture I'm almost down with a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

[missyny]

Fuck, yes! Jesus H. Let's get on with it!

[kristie]

Jun 10, 2014 9:15:58 GMT -5 jillianashley6 said:

Yes, absolutely.


But I just don't see it happening. I think the NRA is too well funded, and honestly- if nothing changed after fucking 5 year olds were shot down, I don't see it changing now.

It still makes me nauseous and weepy that it wasn't enough to change something. Something! FUCK the NRA! Your freedom does not trump children's lives, you disgusting ammosexuals.

[Deleted]

Yes. Happily. And we are gun owners.

[themoneytree]

Jun 10, 2014 7:40:57 GMT -5 flamingeaux said:

Jun 10, 2014 6:51:08 GMT -5 themoneytree said:

Unpopular opinion but I would prefer to see a full ban.
I know it's probably not realistic here though because too many people would fight to protect their stash.

I would support a full ban on concealed carry guns with high penalties for non compliance.

I see no reason for machine gun type firearms being out in the public at all. 2 crimes committed with them is 2 too many. Total ban.

If guns must remain legal I would want there to be a total ban on removing them from your own property.

This can not happen.  Hunters need to be able to transport their guns, in order to keep certain populations of wildlife in check, and also feed their families.  Do you know how many accidents would happen when people hit deer, or hogs?  A small car, like a smart car or mini cooper, colliding with a full grown deer would not end well for either party.

I would be okay with psychological exams for owners, and with sellers and owners having to register ammunition.

Oh come on.
Have culling weeks with special dispensation for hunting equipment? Exempt hunting rifles?
Anything that stops people wandering around with a loaded gun on them.

[Deleted]

Absofuckinglutely.

[TrickyBob]

We are gun owners and I would like to see strict laws and am perfectly fine with everyone registering everything.

I think it is a disgusting practice to tote your guns everywhere just because you can. No one is impressed by it. I am also tired of seeing schools become places to fear and lives being lost.

I don't know what the real answer is here but something needs to happen.