Religion A proposed Amendment to the 2nd Amendment.

[MARIS61]

Sorry Marz, you can shove that major infringement right up your aft.

 

[MARIS61]

For clarification it was if Oregon banned assault rifles, which Oregon can do.

Not Constitutionally they can’t. Obvious infringement, as are ALL laws that limit ownership of arms of ANY kind.

 

[Stevenson]

Not Constitutionally they can’t. Obvious infringement, as are ALL laws that limit ownership of arms of ANY kind.

That is flatly incorrect.

 

[MARIS61]

That is flatly incorrect.

1. Learn US History.

2. Then post.

 

[CupWizier]

1. Learn US History.

2. Then post.

Maybe you should learn and then post. Explain why it happened in 1994.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

[Stevenson]

1. Learn US History.

2. Then post.

Actually, I am not the one making the flat-out wrong, wildly incorrect misstatement, you are. So I suggest you

1. Learn U.S. history, and law, and

2. Then post.

 

[MarAzul]

So abolishing slavery, civil rights and the women's suffrage movement aren't in your log of historical changes I take it?

Why did you post this comment? You must know that both of these changes came about by Amendments, The 13th and 19th?

 

[MarAzul]

So this is our fundamental disagreement, and the essence of what the Court deals with as well - Scalia vs. Ruth Ginsberg, etc.

Of course Amendments are interpreted in light of modern times and ethics. Did you know that the right to have a gun per the 2nd Amendment was practically nil in the 1930s and only became a "right" due to a new interpretation by this Court a decade ago?

I disagree with the outcome, but agree that each Court must interpret the Constitution as a living document, not per some standard from the 1700s.

Ah well! You just proved the point. Screw the amendment process, you guys just want it interperted as you want. Convoluted or not is not important.
That will end this this discussion.

 

[MarAzul]

Sorry Marz, you can shove that major infringement right up your aft.

>>>And rightfully so. See the next two quotes for the reason why.

So this is our fundamental disagreement, and the essence of what the Court deals with as well - Scalia vs. Ruth Ginsberg, etc.

Of course Amendments are interpreted in light of modern times and ethics. Did you know that the right to have a gun per the 2nd Amendment was practically nil in the 1930s and only became a "right" due to a new interpretation by this Court a decade ago?

I disagree with the outcome, but agree that each Court must interpret the Constitution as a living document, not per some standard from the 1700s.

Ah well! You just proved the point. Screw the amendment process, you guys just want it interperted as you want. Convoluted onr not is not importeant.
That will end this this discussion.

 

[MarAzul]

I'll board him

Why wait?

 

[Stevenson]

Ah well! You just proved the point. Screw the amendment process, you guys just want it interperted as you want. Convoluted onr not is not importeant.
That will end this this discussion.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. We have 3 branches of government, not 2. The judicial branch interprets the law.

Read your beloved Constitution. That's how it works.

And yes, that is the end of the discussion.

 

[Chris Craig]

I probably still missed a few.

barfo

Just some words that don't need to be capitalized, such as cities and state\states

 

[Chris Craig]

The second amendment stands as written, with the addition to clarify;
The right of the citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the individual to defend oneself and those you protect is inherited from the creator. All fully automatic weapons are deemed to exceed the right of self defense, and therefore are reserved for the use of the sovereign States and the Federal Government.

The right to bear arms within the densely populated boundaries of Cities of 125,000 or more registered residents, may be altered by a super majority local vote of the registered voters. A majority of 66% of the voters, with at least 50% registered voters, voting, may chose to infringe on the right to certain arms or the right to arms within their geographic area . The same restrictions will remain in effect through out the State for the residents of the restricted area.

The right to bear arms on any US documented vessel can not be infringed by any City in any State.

A good start @MarAzul

The first sentence kind if makes the rest of it moot.

"fully automatic weapons" is too vague

rights can be changed only at the city level? Why not at the state level? And only cities larger than 125,000 residents? So peoples rights to machine guns in smaller cities can't be infringed?

I could agree with the supervote part

"A majority of 66% of the voters, with at least 50% registered voters, voting, may chose to infringe on the right to certain arms or the right to arms within their geographic area."

Though I don't think infringe is the right word choicr here?

Then, if you live in a city where the rights to bear certain arms have been limited or discharged, then your rights to those weapons are also taken away in the rest of the state? Interesting. What if you visited a different state? Could you then just move to a different city where the law doesn't exist and keep your guns? Is there a required tine for residency in this matter?

I like that you end your ammendment making sure they can't take your guns since you reside on a boat. But, what if your boat is registered in a city where such a change in the law comes in place?


'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

You know before the supreme court reinterpreted the 2nd ammendment to include personal rights, this ammendment covered only the rights of militias.

 

[MarAzul]

A good start @MarAzul

The first sentence kind if makes the rest of it moot.
>>> As I said, the 2nd amendent is kept in tact with the following additions, with last sentence repeated here followed by the additions.

"fully automatic weapons" is too vague
>>> that is the dividing line now and I think it is the dividing line between defensive and offensive arms although it is done with tax stamps other foolishness. What is your improvement?

rights can be changed only at the city level? Why not at the state level? And only cities larger than 125,000 residents? So peoples rights to machine guns in smaller cities can't be infringed?
>>> in my view it is mostly city dwellers that want more restrictions. And I believe this lets people choose the city the wish to live in if their current city wants' to remove their rights to weapons.
But in the country side, the people right to bear arms should remain. For example, noway would Eastern Oegon submit to a dominate Portland on this issue.

I could agree with the supervote part

"A majority of 66% of the voters, with at least 50% registered voters, voting, may chose to infringe on the right to certain arms or the right to arms within their geographic area."

Though I don't think infringe is the right word choicr here?
>>> Well it reads infringed now, and voting to that away that right is surely and infringment. What term would you like?

Then, if you live in a city where the rights to bear certain arms have been limited or discharged, then your rights to those weapons are also taken away in the rest of the state? Interesting. What if you visited a different state?
>>>Revert to no infringement or the local area of the state visited.
Could you then just move to a different city where the law doesn't exist and keep your guns?
>>> This is the intent.
Is there a required tine for residency in this matter?
>>>None intended

I like that you end your ammendment making sure they can't take your guns since you reside on a boat. But, what if your boat is registered in a city where such a change in the law comes in place?
>>> Boat are registered at the state level, or as United States Documented vessels.
I intended no distingtion here for ams on any boat registed with a state. The difference come with US Documented vessels to always retain the right to have arms on board, regardless of the local rules of the city sea port they visit. Basically, there really is no law enforcement at sea even in US waters. The only reason vessel are not preyed upon in US waters, like they are in many other places, is the threat of defensive arms on board. I think it would be a huge mistake for a few cities to force these people to become defenseless.


'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
>>> That statement has not been removed. But as you know it is simply one of many reason for people to be armed. By origninal intent studying Madison, in my view.

You know before the supreme court reinterpreted the 2nd ammendment to include personal rights, this ammendment covered only the rights of militias.

>>>Not in the original intent. Perhaps in some wrong minded opinions. Pretty hard to imagine this being the case when one of the big reason colonial peoples rebelled was the confiscation of arms by the Brits. They had long established tradiition of being armed up to that point.

 

[riverman]

Screw the amendment process, you guys just want it interperted as you want. Convoluted or not is not important.

posts like this are where you go off the deep end Marz.....you have a far too rigid view of the approach to changes...it starts with flexibility and needs to be kept in context....I sense you have lost the complexity of modern America for nostalgic definitions....every amendment to the constitution starts with proposals and question...attacking those things gets you nowhere...applying them to the problems of the day however is ongoing....I keep trying to discuss alternatives to the status quo but really....you don't want to have those conversations....and a clue....ask questions of forum members with the ability to listen to the answers...you have an invested interest in the Constitution...you know it's changed over time....now is no different. The colonists didn't revolt because of guns...they revolted because of money being sent to crazy King George and nothing coming back in return...the founding fathers agreed to disagree while forming our country over beers in a pub for the most part...strong personality types that were smart enough to listen to each other....we should follow their example around here.....if S2OT topics were talked about it would make this place interesting...it's morphed into talking about forum members instead of topics and I guess I'm guilty of that with this post but we should put our energy into talking with each other instead of at each other so much....my 2 cents...I've got issues with current events...too bad talking about them leads to partisan posturing

 

[CupWizier]

posts like this are where you go off the deep end Marz.....you have a far too rigid view of the approach to changes...it starts with flexibility and needs to be kept in context....I sense you have lost the complexity of modern America for nostalgic definitions....every amendment to the constitution starts with proposals and question...attacking those things gets you nowhere...applying them to the problems of the day however is ongoing....I keep trying to discuss alternatives to the status quo but really....you don't want to have those conversations....and a clue....ask questions of forum members with the ability to listen to the answers...you have an invested interest in the Constitution...you know it's changed over time....now is no different. The colonists didn't revolt because of guns...they revolted because of money being sent to crazy King George and nothing coming back in return

He has a hard time communicating complete thoughts and he also sees things only for his purpose rather than for the good of all. If it doesn't help him personally then he is typically against it.

 

[MarAzul]

Why would the left take issue with an amendment that codifies a city's ability to restrict, reduce, or even eliminate its citizens' ability to own guns? Seems like it fits their quintessential "baby step" motif.

Don't know, but just for a trial, I thought we could give it a shot. I don't think they want an amendment. Of course, that was what I thought in the begining.

 

[barfo]

Don't know, but just for a trial, I thought we could give it a shot. I don't think they want an amendment. Of course, that was what I thought in the begining.

A badly drafted amendment isn't really what we want. Among other things, we need clarity, not more confusion. Let's redraft the existing 2nd in clear, modern language.

Why exempt small places from the ability for self-rule? Yes, rural people are less likely to want to have gun control, but if some small town does want gun control, why shouldn't they be allowed to have it?

Oh, and to go with the MarAzul provision, I guess we need a barfo provision: Pirates can have whatever arms they want up to and including nukes, and it shall be legal to fire preemptively upon any sail-powered craft within range.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

A badly drafted amendment isn't really what we want. Among other things, we need clarity, not more confusion. Let's redraft the existing 2nd in clear, modern language.

Why exempt small places from the ability for self-rule? Yes, rural people are less likely to want to have gun control, but if some small town does want gun control, why shouldn't they be allowed to have it?

Oh, and to go with the MarAzul provision, I guess we need a barfo provision: Pirates can have whatever arms they want up to and including nukes, and it shall be legal to fire preemptively upon any sail-powered craft within range.

barfo

Go for it barf. Modify it as you see fit. If you think you can imprrove it to gain the votes needed, then have at it. If you think it helps the cause to push me off the wagon, go for it.
But right now, no one is voting for it, which means, the current law will remain in effect. Ha! I think it is pretty clear, lefties do not want an amendment, no way in hell could even you get them to vote for one.

 

[riverman]

lefties do not want an amendment

partisan posturing.....for the record I agree with your statement that it would be voted down but let's drop the team political definitions...how about ...americans will make up their own minds...some will vote...some won't..like every issue ever concerning policy

 

[MarAzul]

partisan posturing.....for the record I agree with your statement that it would be voted down but let's drop the team political definitions...how about ...americans will make up their own minds...some will vote...some won't..like every issue ever concerning policy

Because river, it is part of the reason for starting this thread. I was quite sure in the begining, that none of you guys on the left would support this sample amendment. While a few on the right might support it. But as you modify it to become supportable on the left, it would be surely rejected by all on the right.

We did see a few modifications from Chris, perhaps he was going to come back with more, I don't know. But @barfo indicated not nearly enough, so he helped demonstrat that the mission was to push it so far left that no American supporting the status quo could vote for it, left or right.

This indicates to me, that the left does not even want an amendment as it would not meet the agenda objectives.

 

[CupWizier]

Because river, it is part of the reason for starting this thread. I was quite sure in the begining, that none of you guys on the left would support this sample amendment. While a few on the right might support it. But as you modify it to become supportable on the left, it would be surely rejected by all on the right.

We did see a few modifications from Chris, perhaps he was going to come back with more, I don't know. But @barfo indicated not nearly enough, so he helped demonstrat that the mission was to push it so far left that no American supporting the status quo could vote for it, left or right.

This indicates to me, that the left does not even want an amendment as it would not meet the agenda objectives.

In reality marzy you have no proof of what the left, the right or for all of those in between would accept. Pointing fingers and pushing blame on one particular political party is so very much trump like. The only thing you are using is responses by a handful of people in a basketball forum. Not a very good sample size to pass any judgement on.

I'm sure I will get another one of your typical responses.