Would you support repeal of the Second Amendment?

[Not Me]

153 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	46 (30%)
	No
	107 (70%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[dogknob]

1. Waaaay too late to do that without firing some shots. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

145. We did that, it was called The Civil War.

I believe the real reason for the 2nd amendment was for the slave states to have a way to keep armies (militias) to defend their "right" to keep slaves.

[enlightenment]

152. The 2nd amendment had

nothing to do with the Civil war beyond the fact that it existed. It is one of the original 10 amendments - the Bill of Rights.

[Motown_Johnny]

156. Yes, and IMO it existed because the slave states wanted to keep armies

in order to protect their property/slaves. Read it again. Notice that it is all one sentence and therefore has one subject.








They needed militias/armies to secure their freedom to keep slaves so the right to keep and bear arms was necessary in order to keep those armies to protect that state's "freedom".

Now that the states no longer need militias to secure their freedom the arms that were necessary then are not necessary now and no longer should fall under the protection of this amendment. To me the first half reads as a qualifier. If we no longer meet that qualification then the second half is no longer relevant.

I would argue that an established law protection exists but not a constitutional one.



I know nobody agrees with me, I don't care. I have read it a thousand times or more and it always reads the same way. No other interpretation makes any sense to me at all.

[PavePusher]

171. Please explain, through grammar, history and case law...

how the Amendment is about controlling militias or restricting guns to militia members.

[enlightenment]

213. If you choose to believe

that the founders were only interested in securing their right to keep slaves, so be it - but it is only tangentially connected to the 'slave states' of the Civil War.

Personally, I think you're argument is fatally flawed and fails to consider the time-period, the context of the time-period, and a host of other historical factors that matter.

The creation of this amendment, however, has nothing to do with the American Civil War.

[Trunk Monkey]

248. So you don't think the fact that the Framers just fought a war

That started because the British tried to disarm them had anything to do with it?

[Confusious]

261. The confiscation of firearms

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)

is nowhere in the declaration of independence, and it wasn't even a reason.

The confiscation of guns was an act by a British general in colonies that were already long ready for war, and it was only in Concorde.

There's a lot of newbies around today.

[MrDiaz]

154. that is a very ignorant

thing to say. Learn your history and then speak!

[Motown_Johnny]

158. I know my history thank you

I am also able to come to conclusions on my own. Please read my other post explaining why I believe as I do.

[Skidmore]

2. There is a place for the second amendment, but not the

the interpretation of it the NRA and weapons producers have. Right now this "they are gonna take yer guns" fomenters are trying to protect a market. Guns are money.

Personally, we do not own weapons of any type.

[PavePusher]

174. You are surrounded, every day, by items that can be used as weapons.

Your failure to recognize them as such does not make it any less true.

[Skidmore]

187. Yep, guns are good. I got the message. They are always good and

everyone should have at least one.

[PavePusher]

205. Not at all what I said, of course...

but feel free to play your snark.

[Myrina]

194. Bingo!

+100

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Yes. However, it will never ever happen.

I'm always amazed by 2nd Amendment proponents that feel ANY regulation is bad. They think everyone should own a gun... including nuts like the guy in CO and Loughner. What they fail to realize that, without regulation, their precious 2nd amendment would be seen as a grave public safety issue and would likely be repealed by popular outcry.

[crazyjoe]

11. There will always be extreme views on both sides, it does not mean we

can't have a right to bear arms, coupled with sensible rules and regulations. I would be for the government taking this out of states hands, and applying the same laws to everyone.
It is way to easy to get a gun in Colorado. (and many southern states)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

251. The 10th amendment...

...makes that impossible. Laws of that sort are the domain of individual states.

[krispos42]

253. That's a stereotype

And it's not really on DU.

The problem the people leaning for gun-control have is that the talking-point they tend to latch on to are just that... factually thin, emotionally-intense sound bites that sound good.


And then when they mention that sound bite, it gets torpedoed, because on a discussion board you can talk something to death.

So after a few minutes, the sound bites are rendered moot, and the pro-gun-laws folks, unwilling to accept that they were just 100% wrong in an exchange, complain that the other side is extremist.

The prevailing opinion is that because I have 10 sound bites, you have to admit at least a couple are correct! Right?

[Cooley Hurd]

271. Never said it WAS on DU...

I'm acquainted w/ many gun rights advocates, and the majority of them feel the 2nd Amendment is absolute and should not be infringed upon by ANY regulation. Yes, my statement was anecdotal, but it fits with what the NRA is looking to do - remove all regulations - including something as common-sense-based as trigger locks.

[xchrom]

4. Re work it at least.

Not as an individual right.

I don't have a problem with the 'regulated militia'.

[N.I.O.F.]

32. This place cracks me up

I tried to reply to you earlier but apparently debate on gun rights is against the rules here. The second amendment says nothing about regulating guns or even regulating militia. It says that guns rights are necessary for a well regulated militia to exist. Its a pretty clear sentence. Hope I don't get deleted for continuing to disagree with you and yours.

[NeverEnuff]

53. ?

Wrong again Bob!

[Hatchling]

249. Who regulates the militia?

How is militia defined?

[onehandle]

5. I wouldn't vote in this poll. Don't want a truckload of ammonium nitrate to show up on my doorstep.

Gun culturists take things pretty personally.

[Zalatix]

91. That brings up another point. This theater shooter bastard also had bombs in his apartment.

Far as I know that's illegal. But he still had it.

[bluedigger]

133. You might as well vote now.

They can read you know.

[baldguy]

6. Yes. Because it has been consistently & deliberately misinterpreted throughout it's history.

It's poorly worded, and it's original purpose has been lost.

[etherealtruth]

208. [phone]

[geckosfeet]

7. What's next? 1 through 10 in an orderly progression?

[MrSlayer]

8. Nope.

As ludicrous as the propositions of armed rebellion or realistically defending yourself against the government may be, I'm uncomfortable with a disarmed citizenship.

Also it would be practically impossible to get rid of guns now.

If you asked me if I wished guns never were invented I'd say yeah. I think the founders may have been a lot more clear what their intentions on this issue were had they foreseen the machine gun, the automag and the RPG. But, alas, they did not and the way it is, is the way it's going to be.

So, no.

[GarroHorus]

9. Never n/t

[crazyjoe]

10. Hell no, then only the criminals will have the guns, with no fear of law abiding citizens.

That would scare me more than a repuke in the whitehouse. I make fun of people who claim " if so and so is elected, i'm moving to canada", but...."if they repeal the second amendment, i'm moving to canada"

[eridani]

14. You do realize that they have stricter gun control then we have? n/t

[Scootaloo]

19. I'd like to think he was writing satire... But then I remember Poe's Law, and feel sad n/t

[crazyjoe]

22. don't be sad, I know it's hard to comprehend that if guns are outlawed for everyone,

chances are the only guns left out there will be in the hands of criminals. Maybe if you tap your heels together and wish real hard, all guns will turn into fairy dust and we'll all join hands and sing kumbaya.

[Scootaloo]

114. Think about what you're saying. It's inherently fucking dumb

"If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!" - well, yeah. Stands to reason, doesn't it? I mean if something is outlawed, and you own one of those somethings, you're an outlaw. Whether it's guns, an endangered parrot, or a wheel of casu marzu.

I have a better idea, anyway. How about all these "law abiding citizens" stop losing their fucking shit and killing bunches of people? Loughner, Zimmerman, Holmes, Rodriguez, all of them "law abiding citizens" right up until they killed people. And of course, the first people out of the ring are people like you rushing to kiss their asses, make excuses, and exhibit how you live in eternal, pants-pissing fear that someone will take away your toys.

Dead kids? Who cares? MAH BULLET BAY-BEES!

[crazyjoe]

279. I guess with the lack of anything intellegent to say, you can always call someone fucking dumb.

And then follow it up with some nonsense.

[crazyjoe]

20. not if we repeal the 2nd amendment they wouldn't. Are you following the conversation?

[Fumesucker]

26. So you're saying Canada has a Second Amendment?

[RC]

147. Much stricter. ALL handguns are either prohibited or restricted.

Handguns with a barrel shorter than 105mm (4.14 inches) and/or in caliber .25 or .32 are prohibited in Canada and are illegal to possess in Canada.
DO NOT EVEN THINK OF ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE BORDER INTO CANADA WITH A PROHIBITED FIREARM!
http://panda.com/canadaguns/

[Zoeisright]

115. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

You go right ahead and move to Canada. Which has strict gun control laws.

[CbtEngr01]

258. Agreed

an armed society is a polite society. Statistics show that areas with more legal gun ownership have lower crime rates. Do you think Holmes, or anyone else for that matter, would have attempted to do what he did if he knew that everyone there was carrying a gun?
A few days ago an elderly man in Florida thwarted 2 threats- 1 armed with a bat, another with a handgun- in a busy internet cafe. Would they have even entered the cafe had they known there was a patron with a legal gun already in there?

[CJCRANE]

269. Holmes was wearing full body armor

so we can assume he expected to meet some resistance.

If everyone there was armed it would have been complete chaos due to the low visibility caused by the dim lighting and smoke grenades.

Your main point may be true but in this case I don't think it would make any difference.

[cecilfirefox]

12. It's not necessary. People should have a reasonable and responsible right to bear arms,

but states need to exercise some sanity in the execution of that right.

[crazyjoe]

13. btw, based on the 75-25 split this poll is taking on a "liberal message board", i don't think

it would be a very popular decision to repeal it.

[Not Me]

15. ...just trying to get the collective feeling of those here

nt

[spin]

48. The poll merely backs up my view that many liberal and progressive individuals ...

support the civilian ownership of firearms and the Second Amendment.

[ileus]

49. My wife and I do...and she just ordered No weapons signs for her clinic.

Funny.....

She took her CHP class this week, when she come home said she needed to order some of those spiffy "no weapons" signs for the clinic.

Of course when pressed the only reason she had was because Open Carry is legal without a CHP.

[quaker bill]

16. The founder's intent

was for people to be able to keep and bear a muzzle loading flintlock long rifle. I don't have a problem with that. I would not do it personally, but being able to manage just one shot roughly every 60 seconds or so would put a crimp in alot of this stuff.

[Johnny Rico]

23. Was it the Founder's intent for the 1st Amendment to only allow people to use a quill & inkwell?

As long as we're restricting Constitutional rights to 18th Century technology, let's be consistent!

[quaker bill]

164. I think Gutenberg invented the press in the 16th century

Ben Franklin was a printer for a living. Freedom of the press came after the press was invented, which is how they got their name...

Try reading a bit of history sometime.

Your point is lame. No one present at the founding of this country even vaguely imagined anything like the current condition in a vast sea of ways, weapons being only one of them.

[Johnny Rico]

168. So you'll generously allow the use of the printing press as it pertains to the 1st Amendment?

Big of you. What about electronic media? Since it's being argued that the Founders didn't mean the 2nd Amendment to apply to anything but the technology of the time, why should the 1st Amendment apply to the internet?

Let's be consistent, boys and girls!

[quaker bill]

274. You misread well

The definition of freedom of the press was for the open distribution of printed word that people could read. The act of reading has not changed, at least for those of us who can manage it, most folks still read one word at a time, and in english from left to right.

However, "bearing arms" unlike writing and reading, has changed. The power, accuracy, size, muzzle velocity, firing rate and lethality of "arms" has changed dramatically. The social context has changed. We are not frontiersmen anymore (perhaps with scant exception of folks well out in the sticks which I would be happy to abide).

Of course in that you were not clear on the fact that printing was invented well before the Consitiution was written, I do not expect a nuanced and considered response.

[apocalypsehow]

99. And since they distrusted a standing army, they wrote the 2nd amend to establish "militias"

which they expected the states to train, equip, and otherwise furnish during times of actual service. It was not meant to allow people to privately own firearms at all, save in that context.

We now have a standing, permanent military force; all those wishing to play around with guns and strut about the place with a Phallic Replacement Device strapped to their hip should do so as the Founders envisioned, and join the National Guard.

[Hoyt]

117. The gun culture won't like that. But, so what.

[apocalypsehow]

128. True: though they seem to wake up every day salivating about a "Red Dawn" scenario

breaking out, I wager that if you asked your average gun totin' super-patriot to put his money where his mouth is and join the Marine Corps or even his local Army National Guard, all you'd get is excuses as to why he can better serve his country by strutting around the local Wal Mart with a pistol perched in his pants.

And that goes double for our so-called "pro-gun progressives."



Edit: typo.

[Kalidurga]

203. This ^^^^^

I voted to not repeal the 2nd amendment. But, I think that everyone that owns a gun should be required to be in a state trained militia. They must be registered and certified and current members of the National Guard or whatever the state equivalent is, that is if the state can stipulate they are not to be called up for military service on a federal level.

[former9thward]

231. You are totally making things up.

None of the founders thought those things.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

[CbtEngr01]

260. What about the current Natl Guardsman?

Lets say someone is in the national guard, what do they do with their weapons? Leave them locked in the armory until the state of chain of command allows it?

When Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said "... Cannot invade the mainland U.S. because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." do you think he was refering to the military/ national guard?

[caraher]

272. Except there's no evidence whatsoever Yamamoto said any such thing

See, for instance, FactCheck.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

166. I beg to differ but...

...as the Declaration of Independence says, the Founders' intent was to provide the citizens with a means to overthrow the government if need be.

[CBGLuthier]

17. America Loves Its Guns MORE Than Its Children!

[dmallind]

47. Not sure I've seen the data on that poll. Link?

Ah yes - can't link to whacked out imaginary hyperbole. My bad, carry on.

[SecularMotion]

18. No, I would support registration and insurance for gun owners to carry in public.

Any gun owner who wants to carry in public should have the same training and follow the same procedures as police officers. There should be a lower threshold for guns kept only for home defense.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

21. Ridiculous argument that only gives Republicans ammo.

All 50 states would have to sign on. It's not going to happen.

[LAGC]

27. Actually, only 33 states would have to sign on.

But the rest of your point stands.

[CTyankee]

24. I sure would if I could. But it won't happen in this country and it is one of the things that is

wrong with the U.S.A.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. No

And, i'm not a gun guy. But, that ship has sailed. It's a waste of time, would never pass, and a complete subrogation of that right is not in order.

More effort needs to be made to pass laws that will pass consitutional muster and place restraints on numbers, firepower, and ammunition types.

But, a total repeal seems reactionary and is an impossible dream.
GAC

[Johnny Rico]

29. What restrictions on numbers, firepower, and ammunition types do you advocate?

Given that I personally own about a hundred firearms, a few of which would be classified as "assault" weapons by some (not to mention over 30,000 rounds of ammo) I'm understandably curious.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. You're The Expert Then

You tell me. What's reasonable to a reasonable person?
GAC

[Johnny Rico]

69. My personal take on it:

No additional restrictions at the national level. Repeal the '86 machine gun ban, 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1934 Gun Control Act. Repeal restrictions on gun ownership at the state level.

I don't have the slightest anticipation that this agenda is going to be put into place, mind you....

[ProfessorGAC]

88. Well, We're Of Different Minds Then

I get the whole militia thing. Never trust any government, too far. But, you can't carry 100 guns at the same time. So, i just don't get it, and i probably won't.
GAC

[Johnny Rico]

96. As I've explained a few times already today:

Collecting & investing are the main reasons I have so many guns.

But, you can't carry 100 guns at the same time.

Tell me about it...last time I moved was a real pain!

So, i just don't get it, and i probably won't.

Do you get the collecting & investing aspect?

[soccer1]

63. Well, a renewed ban on assault weapons and a limit on the amount of ammo ...

that would be a start.

[Johnny Rico]

70. We'll certainly have to agree to disagree on the cosmetic features ban (otherwise known as the AWB).

As for limiting ammo...how many rounds should I be restricted to owning? C'mon, specifics!

[soccer1]

84. I don't know.

But ,any citizen, other than those in the military, should not be allowed to purchase any gun that can fire more than one bullet at a time. I don't know the names of those guns (semi automatic, assault?). The name isn't important to me.....what the weapon is capable of doing is what's important to me.

[Johnny Rico]

90. If you don't know then what's your point?

You seem to be under the impression that there are a great many fully automatic weapons out there, when in fact the vast majority (well in excess of 99%) of firearms owned by the public do in fact only shoot one bullet per pull of the trigger.

Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) are highly restricted, but can be legally owned in most states. The owners of legally owned machine guns are in fact the most responsible gun owners in the country, as only 2 homicides have been committed using them in the last 80 years or so, and one of those was by a police officer!

The number of legal machine guns in the hands of the public is somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 or so.

[soccer1]

95. Educate me.....if you don't mind.....

Which states allow citizens to own machine guns and what are the restrictions put on their ownership?

[Johnny Rico]

116. It's actually much quicker to list the states that don't allow citizens to own machine guns:

CA, DE, DC, HI, NY, WA.

As for ownership...there's a lot of paperwork involved. If you can legally own a pistol, you should be able to own a machine gun. You have to get an approval from your local law enforcement official, and then send a bunch of forms to the Feds at the BATFE, along with a $200 fee. 6 to 9 months later, the paperwork comes back and you can then pick up your machine gun from the dealer (which you actually paid for 6 to 9 months ago!)

As a practical matter, though, machine guns are out of the reach of most shooters. Congress passed a law in 1986 prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns for civilian ownership, thus fixing the supply. The machine guns made prior to 1986 have gone up in value by a factor of 10 to 20 times. The cheapest machine guns out there run thousands of dollars, with nicer ones costing tens of thousands.

The same procedure is used to purchase a silencer, which I did just last year. I paid for it (cost $500), filled out the paperwork, sent in the fee, and was able to pick it up 8 months later. I'll have to admit that in this case I bought it pretty much because it's just so freaking cool. It's fun to be able to shoot without ear protection.

Amusing anecdote time: On the form for the silencer there's a space, "reason for purchase". On the advice of the dealer I wrote in "to reduce noise pollution". He told me that one of his customers refused to do so and wrote "because chicks dig it".

His application was rejected, and he was out the $200 fee as well. The BATFE doesn't have a sense of humor about these things...

[soccer1]

123. Thank you for your reply.....

Okay...so machine guns are limited...that's a good thing. Are assault weapons the same thing as machine guns?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

125. No

(Pardon my intrusion)

The AWB banned certain semi-autos and never addressed full-autos or machine guns.

[soccer1]

127. So, these weapons are still being made and sold in the U.S?

Why would some semi-autos be banned but not machine guns and full-autos?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

140. As the other response said...

...the AWB has expired almost 8 years ago. New full-autos are no longer sold to civilians.

[soccer1]

143. Okay. Thnaks

[PavePusher]

178. The so-called "AWB" didn't really ban anything but certain combinations of features.

For a short education: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=984300

Edit: Disregard, Jonny Rico beat me to it.

[soccer1]

195. Thanks, anyway!

[Johnny Rico]

135. Assault weapons vs. machine guns:

"Assault Weapon" is something of an invented term, used by gun control advocates to describe guns with cosmetic features that they find distasteful. Here's an article on it:

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

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though strangely, this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine

As soon as the assault weapons ban passed, gunmakers followed it to the letter by not including such features as bayonet lugs on their rifles. This resulted in companies such as Colt switching from making this "pre-ban" AR-15 which was defined as as "assault weapon":

'

And instead they made this "post-ban" AR-15 which was not an assault weapon:



No bayonet lug or flash hider! By the logic of the AWB, that make it less dangerous!

Anyhoo, the Ban expired in 2004 (thankfully), and gun manufacturers are pumping out weapons that would be defined as "assault weapons" by the bucketful. In fact, the AR-15 is now the most popular centerfire rifle in America.

Bottom line: An "Assault Weapon" is simply a semiautomatic weapon that looks, well, nasty. Lots of black plastic instead of wood, and a pistol grip. This rifle, the Mini-14, is not and has never been considered an assault rifle:



And yet it fires the exact same round as the AR-15s pictured above, at exactly the same rate of fire. In practical terms, they're function identically...yet the Feds tried to ban one and not the other based entirely on cosmetics!

so machine guns are limited...that's a good thing.

Sez you...

[soccer1]

148. Well, this is depressing........

So, guns that can shoot multiple rounds are called "semiautomatic" weapons? The why didn't Congress use that terminology when enacting the AWB so that there would be no confusion about what type of weapons were banned?

Anyway, I do not understand a society that condones citizens owning semiautomatic weapons (unless one is a collector and those weapons should be registered and accounted for).

Well, enjoy your weapons......keep them away from those who would use them to do harm to others......peace to you and all weapons' owners.

[Johnny Rico]

150. The term is quite accurate. A semiautomatic firearm is one which fires once per pull of the trigger

while reloading a fresh round into the chamber from whatever feeding device the gun uses (usually, but not always, a magazine).

The why didn't Congress use that terminology when enacting the AWB so that there would be no confusion about what type of weapons were banned?

Because it would have been politically unfeasible. The AWB barely passed Congress, and it prohibited the manufacture of a small fraction of firearms. If the manufacture of all semiautomatics had been banned it would have affected almost half of all firearms manufacture. There's no way such a draconian measure would have passed, even in the '90s.

Well, enjoy your weapons

I will!

peace to you and all weapons' owners.

And the same to you.

[PavePusher]

182. "I do not understand a society that condones citizens owning semiautomatic weapons..."

Why not? What is inherently bad about them?

[soccer1]

201. Yes, I know the response...guns don't kill, people kill.....

and people murder with any type of firearm. Sadly, I can't argue with that. I do believe there's something inherently wrong with a society that condones ownership of any type of firearm other than those used for hunting. Just my view....I certainly realize many people disagree with me.

[PavePusher]

209. Most firearms can be used for hunting.

And for the record, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

[soccer1]

215. Yes, I know that about the second amendment.....

So, basically everyone who meets the requirements for gun ownership should be able to own any type of firearm because the 2nd grants that right to U.S. citizens.So, I guess we are just supposed to accept the fact that unidentified mentally ill people will continue to be able to legally purchase firearms so that they can murder innocent people. Hey, stuff happens, right?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

229. The difference is one of them gives a gun nut wood,...and it's not the wooden one....

[PavePusher]

265. Sorry, I don't share your sexual fetishes.

Guns are tools for defense, food and recreation. I get my sexual satisfaction in unrelated ways.

But thanks for sharing.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

267. LOL!!! Those aren't MY thoughts. It's theirs.

I've been dealing with gun nuts forever and they aren't interested in hunting. Their whole thing is to play army. You could put a 30-06 Springfield next to a knockoff cheap ass piece of junk that looks like an M-16 but fires .22s and they would grab the pea shooter. Then they would dress up and pose with their mean looking gun and their fellow gun nuts would swoon over the smell of the testosterone coming over their monitors. It's like what Tim Allen said about Sears. These guys walk into a gun shop and their nipples are rock hard.

Just google for images and you find things like this:

[img][img]

This is better than sex to them.

[Progressive dog]

157. Question about the silencer

I thought silencers wore out quickly and reduced accuracy.
About how long (shots) do you expect it to last and how much, if any, will it affect the accuracy?

[Johnny Rico]

161. High quality silencers don't wear out quickly.

Certainly not ones designed to be used on a .22 such as mine. I've read that if anything they improve accuracy slightly (when used with proper subsonic loads).

I have every reason to believe that it will last for thousands of rounds. As for accuracy, the Ruger I've been using it on is more inherently accurate than I can shoot with and without the silencer on it!

Here's what I bought, the SWR Spectre:

[soccer1]

86. Why do you own all those guns?

[Johnny Rico]

93. A number of reasons.

Self defense (only applies to a couple of them, obviously)

Collecting...I find them interesting.

Investments...they certainly appreciate in value better than a CD...!

[soccer1]

97. Investment...okay.....

If you were to sell them, what laws would you have to follow for change of ownership?

Why do you find them interesting?

[Johnny Rico]

103. Regarding selling them:

If I sell them to someone in my own state (Colorado) the buyer hands me money, and I hand them the gun.

That's it (which is the way I like it, needless to say!) unless I sell them at a gun show, in which case I have to do a background check through the CBI (annoying).

If I sell them to someone in a different state, they have to be shipped to someone with an FFL (Federal Firearms License) who must follow all the laws pertaining to their particular state before transferring them to the buyer.

Why do you find them interesting?

I've always found military hardware interesting, and I stopped by a local gun shop on a whim about 30 years ago. They had a Swedish model 07 semiautomatic handgun for sale in pristine condition for only a few hundred, and I bought it. That started me.

It's a bit hard to explain beyond that...some people collect barbed wire. Why do they find that interesting? To each their own!

[soccer1]

105. So, technicaly, you could sell your assault weapons to a person who wants it to commit a crime......

I'm not saying that you would....but how would you know?

I don't anyone who collects barbed wire......I doubt that you do, either. And, even if that were true, that some people collect barbed wire, I've never known of a violent crime committed by way of barbed wire.

[Johnny Rico]

118. Sure I could. Just as I could sell my car to someone who wants to use it to commit a crime.

I'm not saying that you would....but how would you know?

As a practical matter, there's no way to know.

Shrug.

I don't anyone who collects barbed wire......I doubt that you do, either.

In all fairness, I don't..but...:

http://www.antiquebarbedwiresociety.com/
http://suite101.com/article/barbed-wire-collecting-a173184
http://www.rushcounty.org/BarbedWireMuseum/BWmodern.htm

I've never known of a violent crime committed by way of barbed wire.

Neither do I...but people do collect, and commit crimes with, knives. A much closer analogy, I think you'll agree.

[soccer1]

122. I think I'm a fairly reasonable person.....

but I would think that there should be a law banning the private selling of firearms. The sale should go through licensed firearms dealers who have the ability to do background checks on the potential buyer and where sales leave a paper trail This should be a federal law, IMO.

If a person can privately sell their legally owned weapons to anyone then I see absolutely no difference between that and illegal arms dealers selling weapons to just anyone. We'll find out soon enough where that young man bought his assault weapon and other weapons that he used to slaughter innocent people. Maybe the person who sold him that weapon (unless he stole it) thought this college student was a gun collector.....you know, a hobbyist? Do you see my point?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

126. re: "This should be a federal law"

The 10th amendment specifically restricts the federal government from making laws like that. The exception is interstate commerce. Firearms sold to a person in another state have to go through an FFL (a dealer with a federal firearms license).

[soccer1]

129. Thank you. So, intra-state sales of firearms are controlled by the states?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

141. Exactly

Each state makes laws for its territory and residents.

[soccer1]

142. Okay. I'll have to get busy researching my state's firearm laws. I imagine...

my legislators will be hearing from me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

144. You may also...

...want to check page 12 of: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf

See if your state is one with a suspiciously low number of mental health records reported to the NICS (FBI) database.
The NICS is the system used by FFLs to run background checks for those who buys firearms.

I am an RKBA supporter myself but I support fixing what's broken.

[soccer1]

149. Thank you

I appreciate the link!

[Johnny Rico]

132. Law banning private sales of firearms are in place in some states such as California.

Which is one of the many reasons I'm glad I don't live in California...

Have to simply agree to disagree with you on this one.

Maybe the person who sold him that weapon (unless he stole it) thought this college student was a gun collector.....you know, a hobbyist? Do you see my point?

I see you point, but I disagree with it. Even if it turns out that he bought his firearms from a collector/hobbyist (unlikely, but certainly possible) my reaction would be "so what?". News reports have indicated that he had no criminal record. He could have simply walked into any gun shop and bought his AR-15, Glocks, and shotgun in a matter of an hour or so.

What difference does it make where he bought them?

[soccer1]

134. Apparently, he bought them at gun shops, if the reporting is accurate.

It makes absolutely no sense to me that a person should be allowed to buy an assault weapon.Is it fair to those people who were murdered today? I have little doubt that if he had not had the assault weapon fewer people would be dead or injured. So, to me, the states that allow sales of these types of weapons are not acting in the best interests of their residents.

[Johnny Rico]

138. Again, we'll have to simply agree to disagree.

"Assault weapons" aren't exactly new technology; semiautomatics have been around since 1893. If he'd used nothing but a pump shotgun with 000 buckshot, he probably would have killed just as many if not more.

Charles Whitman killed 16 people in 1966 using a Remington bolt-action rifle.

If you could somehow ban and confiscate every modern gun in America, you'd probably reduce the murder rate, I'll give you that. Mind you, actually trying to do that would probably result in tens of thousands of deaths, if not more.

In any case, such a ban isn't going to happen. Period. And "assault" weapons aren't that much more effective than manual repeaters...so what's the point?

[soccer1]

169. Why would the banning and confiscation of guns result in thousands of deaths?

What's my point? Well, as a U.S. citizen, born and raised here, I'm acutely uncomfortable with the gun culture that permeates our culture, with the violence that permeates the entertainment industry, with the incivility that permeates our politics and media industry. I guess I'm just a misplaced person.......I should be living in a culture that better fits my belief system and temperament. However, at this stage in my life, it's not likely I will be relocating to another country. So, I'll soldier on, writing to my legislators about gun control issues, advocating for peaceful resolution of conflict within communities and nations, and voting for those who best represent my beliefs. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my questions about gun issues. It's been very helpful!

[Johnny Rico]

177. A lot of gunowners take the phrase, "Out of my cold dead hands" very seriously.

If the government tried to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the United States at gunpoint (not that such a scenario is remotely feasible), it would result in a civil war...and I don't think that's an exaggeration.

So, I'll soldier on, writing to my legislators about gun control issues,

While I disagree with your political goal (on this subject), I applaud your sense of civic responsibility.

Have a good one!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

151. I don't mean to criticize.

Aside from the fact that it is a right of a free people to be armed, it would be wrong and impossible to disarm everyone in the US.

There are about 600,000,000 firearms in private hands worldwide. About half of them are in the US. Banning all semi-autos would be to target (in my estimation) about half of the guns in the US. It will never happen and it shouldn't.

Having said that, there are still things that should be done.

[soccer1]

155. I'm not sure I agree with you that it is a right of free people to be armed...but....

having said that, I am interested in knowing what things you think should be done about gun ownership.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

160. I love to elaborate but I'm a bit busy.

I'm in CA this week for work but I'm flying home (Philly area) on a red-eye tonight. I'll get back to you later this evening.

Best regards

[soccer1]

170. Safe trip back to Philly.....

And thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I'm always willing to learn!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

173. "...willing to learn..."

That's something to be proud of.

[soccer1]

179. Yep, I like to gather facts.....

draw conclusions based on knowledge, then render my opinions or judgements (depending on the perspective of the reader). Is there any other approach rational thinking?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

233. My thoughts

I support having states become more responsible in reporting mental health issues (and issues that ought to be classed as such) to the NICS database. It is really unbelievable that four states have reported NO ONE - - that's zero persons - - EVER to the FBI as being mentally unfit. I lived in PA most of my life. I know for a fact they have more than one crazy living just in Philly. However, PA and some other states have submitted nearly no records.

On the other hand, there are some laws, like the AWB, that don't make sense, should be eliminated as they just tie up useful resources and don't accomplish much.

[soccer1]

234. Do you believe people who visit mental health therapists or are on some type of

psychotropic drug should have their names submitted to the NICS database? Wow....talking about invasion of privacy.....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

245. No. In general...

...I support what is contained in title 18 of the United States Code:

< http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html >

Basically this means those who have been involuntarily committed to a facility at some point.

HTH

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

153. You seem to be an intelligent and articulate person.

I would also highlight the GC&RKBA group on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172 where such topics and news are discussed daily. You would be most welcome.

Have a nice day.

[Johnny Rico]

180. Second that.

You would be most welcome.

We could use some intelligent and polite posters such as Soccer1 who come from the other side in GC&RKBA. You can take only so much irrationality from The Usual Suspects...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

200. Agreed.

I certainly appreciate an opinion especially a fresh one. Not that would remove any of the "Usual Suspects" but fresh ideas are absolutely life's blood.

[PavePusher]

186. "It makes absolutely no sense to me that a person should be allowed to buy an assault weapon."

Why not? There is nothing about them that makes them particularly more or less lethal than any other firearm, and their technology is over 100 years old.


"Is it fair to those people who were murdered today?"

It has no relevence to this incident at all. Especially as one I buy will not be used to kill any lawful peaceful people. It might be used against a criminal intruder, but mostly for target practice, competitive shooting sports, possible hunting, in hunting legal configuration.


"I have little doubt that if he had not had the assault weapon fewer people would be dead or injured."

Cho racked up twice the death count using only handguns. Your assertion is not supported by facts.

[soccer1]

193. I do understand your point about any type of gun being capable of killing multiple numbers of people

That's why I'm in favor of bans on all guns other than those used for hunting.

But, I do realize that firearms of all types are here to stay in the U.S. The SC has said that citizens can own arms for their protection....the SC also left room for states to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms....so I guess all is not lost.

[PavePusher]

206. AR- and AK-pattern rifles are quite useful for hunting.

Many/most rifles have multi-use capability.

[soccer1]

217. I understand.

I just have a bit of a problem with mentally ill people getting their hands on guns and murdering innocent people with those guns.

Most people have a problem with that. The question is......what can be done about it? Nothing, really, I suppose.

[sarisataka]

230. That is the fly in the ointment

how to pick out those likely to commit horrible acts of violence while protecting the rights of those who don't. Despite many laws, some still slip through.

Allow me to 2nd (3rd?... more?) an invite to the gungeon. We have some very interesting converrsations and even more interesting playground spats. Another sane voice (on either side) is always welcome.

[CbtEngr01]

263. each one has a job to do

why would some own all those tools? Would you use a tack hammer to frame a house?
Various reasons to own "all those guns." wouldnt reccomend using a shotgun on a deer 300 yards away.... Wouldnt reccomend using a hunting rifle on ducks...
Wouldnt want to defend your house with a butter knife...

Could go on and on like that.

Reasons: defense, hunting, sporting, just having fun

[DiverDave]

92. Why do you have that much ammo?

sorta raises a red flag.
Course maybe you have a hella deer problem.
I dont think you need that much.

Unless you are starting a war?

Christ 30 THOUSAND??

[Johnny Rico]

94. Because it amuses me to have it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a few hundred rounds for each gun one owns, do you?

I dont think you need that much.

Luckily, that's not your decision to make.

[PavePusher]

184. "sorta raises a red flag."

Why? And what kind of "red flag"? What are you insinuating?

Ammo is often bought in bulk. .22 LR rounds are most frequently sold in packs of 500-ish, and you can easily go through one or two packs in a range session. Gun stores and gun shows often sell bulk target ammo in 200/400/500/1000 round pack, cases or cans. It's cheaper that way, and you get a long-term storage container with it. 30,000 rounds might fill up the lower half of a small coat closet. Maybe a little more if you have a lot of shot-shells.

Costco needs to get into ammo retailing.

[SaveAmerica]

36. i'm with you prof

I'm a fan of the restrictions i see in Japan and imagine i would like the sense of peace i would have in that culture. I also do not like the frenetic anger and 'passion' I'm seeing stirred in gun enthusiast groups. At the same time I don't feel the need to take away the right bear arms if someone feels a need to protect themselves or for hunting.

I voted no but I do feel the need to remove access to weapons that will injure or kill massive amounts of people in a few minutes' time.

[Johnny Rico]

130. You've contradicted yourself.

I'm a fan of the restrictions i see in Japan

It's virtually impossible to own firearms of any sort in Japan.

At the same time I don't feel the need to take away the right bear arms if someone feels a need to protect themselves or for hunting.

For which one would presumably use rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

So which is it? A total ban on firearms as in Japan, or not?

[SaveAmerica]

242. nope, you're not comprehending where i'm coming from

A country where it is virtually impossible to own firearms sounds amazing to me, that's where my heart is.

I realize that there are people in the US who want to have a weapon for personal protection, that's why i voted no in this poll about the 2nd amendment. Just remove access to weapons that spew bullets like it's candy corn.

Giving you an A+ on the time put into this topic.

[PavePusher]

189. "...and imagine i would like the sense of peace i would have in that culture."

The culture with an astronomical suicide rate? The culture with a stunning homogeneity, and an overwhelming affect of stifling the socially rebellious?

I lived there for 3 years, I like the U.S. better, thank you.

[SaveAmerica]

237. the discussion is about guns and our 2nd amendment

My comments are about that aspect of the country (unless you're telling me all thethings in your post are the result of their gun laws?).

[PavePusher]

266. Just the opposite really.

Their gun laws are a result of that society. How could it be otherwise?

[Johnny Rico]

28. Absolutely not.

But I've always been something of a fan of Constitutional Rights.

Some here obviously disagree.

[Marinedem]

61. With you.

The Constitution isn't a fucking salad bar.

All or none.

[Johnny Rico]

68. The contempt some have here for the Constitution is sickening.

Not just for the 2nd Amendment...there have been plenty of posters advocating for restrictions on speech that they don't like.

[unblock]

111. uhhhhh, the constitution provides for amendments, including repeal of previous amendments....

so "contempt for the constitution" is not relevant when discussion repeal or any other amendment to the constitution done through the constitution's own established procedures.

"contempt for the constitution" IS relevant when discussing bills or laws that run afoul of the constitution, or court decisions that similarly ignore or twist the meaning of the constitution.

but this is not a matter of contempt for the constitution.



that said, fucking with the bill of rights is a bad, BAD, **BAD** idea -- no matter how much you hate guns (as i do).
it's a matter of contempt for, or at best a dangerous indifference to, the protections for individual liberties that the bill of rights was meant to assure.

[Johnny Rico]

119. Fair point.

But when someone simply asserts that all guns should be banned without repealing the 2nd Amendment, or asserts that political speech they don't like should be illegal, they are expressing contempt (or simply ignorance...or both).

[emilyg]

246. +10

[MicaelS]

30. Absolutely not...

If the private possession of every gun was banned and every gun in private possession was rounded up and destroyed, then criminal gangs would start smuggling guns into the US to feed the demand for guns by dope dealers and other criminals in this country.

Alcohol Prohibition did not work.

Drug Prohibition has not worked.

Gun Prohibition will not work.

[soccer1]

67. Do you believe the assault weapon ban should be renewed?

[Iggy]

31. I'm Advocating a 'War on Nuts'

Look, folks, as pointed out upstream, there's wayyy too much water under the bridge to get rid
of guns at this point. attempting to do so would in fact cause a violent reaction by some gun
owners.

But what is outrageous and wrong is "we are powerless to stop" these nutcases that go off every
few weeks now.

in the case of the perp who shot congresswoman Giffords, the guy was _known_ to have issues. he
was posting crap all over on websites, was a problem at school, etc. the cops knew about his guy
way before he went off and killed/injured people in Tuscon. they _knew_ he had guns

the answer: yes, 24/7 surveillance of potential perps.

I don't buy the excuse "there are too many of them" to watch. what we have now is wrong
priorities. totally wrong. i.e. the stupid and hopeless "war on drugs".

Obviously what we are doing now is NOT working.

[TBF]

33. I think we may have to work on our interpretation of that amendment as a nation

ie I think we can do more to control who is carrying guns.

I personally wouldn't want one myself, but I don't think we should repeal the amendment. That seems extreme.

[DLine]

34. Another No vote here....

For starters it would be impossible if not dangerous in itself. If you think the right had a hissy fit over healthcare, you haven't seen anything yet. I also would not be comfortable with a disarmed citizenship. Like others have pointed out, this would only take guns away from honest citizens. Im not a "gun nut" and generally despise the National Republican rifle Association, but I do own firearms and enjoy shooting for recreation.

[TheCowsCameHome]

35. No

[Lawlbringer]

37. Repeal? Absolutely not.

An Amendment modifying or clarifying, without question.

[LynneSin]

38. I hate guns but even I would say 'no'

It's a personal choice whether one wants to own guns or not.

I do believe that gun background checks; however, are an absolute must!

[Lizzie Poppet]

46. Agreed.

It would be a huge task, but incorporating psychiatric records into the database the instant check system uses is possible. Along with the enormous coding effort, it woudl take altering medical privacy laws, and that woudl have to be done with extreme care, but it's something I think should be looked into.

It should be mentioned, however, that as shocking and horrible as the Aurora incident is, psychos "going off" with firearms represent a very tiny minority of gun-related crime. Murders and assaults by garden variety criminals are by far the larger danger.

[permatex]

216. Very good post

I can get on board with every thing you just said. One thing though, any dealer selling at a gun show has to do the NICS check, no exceptions.
I do support background checks for private sales, NICS should be opened to private sellers with a sale/no sale system.

[CbtEngr01]

262. dealers ive seen do

thank you.
Been to gun shows in many different states. All the dealers there operate just as if they were at their store/shop.
As far as private sales.... Lets say im the seller and my best friend wants to buy my gun. We both have clean records and I know it, would I need to go through NICS? Or the buyer is merely an acquantance that has a legaly issued concealed weapons permit?

And if there were a law mandating private sales have to go through NICS/a dealer, does that mean I cant pass down my grandpas shotgun to my son? Or buy my friends son a 22 for Christmas?

[GarroHorus]

39. It makes me happy to see DU being so pro-constitution

I'm also glad that the people demanding a gun grab are a very small minority.

[Mimosa]

101. ITA, Garrohorus n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

40. No.

But damn sure insist on more regulation for the required "well-regulated militia".

[stlsaxman]

42. No... and it disgusts me that you would even post this.

(this is the safest way to post how i feel w/o getting my reaction deleted)

[mmonk]

43. It's already been repealed through reinterpretation.

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. A horrible idea that would end in blood.

Actually, I'll go farther: a successful attempt to repeal the Second Amendment woudl end in the violent dissolution of the Union.

[edhopper]

45. No

I would just enforce the part about "a well regulated militia"
I never thought the 2nd said anyone could have any gun they wanted.

[Ruby the Liberal]

51. No, but a "well regulated militia" is a far cry from assault weapons

and the hue and cry about having waiting periods and ID requirements.

[hack89]

54. We have waiting periods and ID requirements

that is current law.

[Ruby the Liberal]

56. Yeah - well tell the member arguing with me about why we shouldn't.

Given that cop killer bullets, automatic weapons and assault rifles are a "right".

A citizen shouldn't have to wait to exercise a Constitutional right. In any case, it's a solution in search of a problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=980720

[hack89]

59. Just remember that gun violence is at historic lows and steadily declining

you have never been safer.

[Ruby the Liberal]

64. Yeah - I didn't go to the Safeway in Tucson, the movies in Aurora

or Science class in Blacksburg.

[hack89]

65. It is the truth

that anti-gun people never want to address. American society as a whole is much less violent then it was 30 years ago. I know it doesn't fit your agenda but it does explain why gun control is dead in America.

[4th law of robotics]

72. "assault weapon" isn't a real term

it's just something people made up for guns they think sound scary.

[Ruby the Liberal]

74. Thanks - I'll keep using it then.

Seems descriptive enough for me.

[4th law of robotics]

78. Sure if you like, but it just makes you sound ignorant

[Tejas]

81. But it FEELS oh so good,

like feel-good laws!

[Ruby the Liberal]

85. I'll take that too.

<~~ Ignorant of the intricacies, variances and nuances of the various weapons designed with a sole purpose of killing as many people in as short a period of time with minimal reloading required.

I'll wear it as a fucking badge of honor.

[4th law of robotics]

113. You're proud of being ignorant?

Ok, well I'll give you credit for being honest at least.

[PavePusher]

192. Pride in ignorance?!?!

How very fucking "progressive" of you.

[Ruby the Liberal]

202. Someone wants to call me "ignorant" because I don't care to know

the details of automatic weapons and the variety of bullet options available for them?

Yeah - I'll wear that as a badge of honor and I don't give a flying fuck if you think that is "progressive" or not.

[PavePusher]

210. No, it's because you've been promoting government action based on fear and ignorance.

Exactly what we castigate Repubs for.

See the point yet?

[mwooldri]

52. Repeal the 2nd Amendment? No. Just... No.

There is no need to amend the constitution.

Gun laws can be crafted around the principle that citizens have the right to have them. In light of today's events this is not the time to have this debate... sure it will come up soon. But repealing the 2nd Amendment is not the answer. The problem lies elsewhere.

[fredamae]

55. No, I don't support the repeal

of the second. I DO support Kicking the NRA Out of the conversation/influence-I DO support voting Out lawmakers who Refuse to Amend the Second to make it "fit" the population growth and social changes since it was originally created. I Support making it more difficult for Everyone to obtain the right to carry. Period.

We will Never stop the bad guys from getting guns but we can Sure as hell make it Harder...yes, I am willing as a responsible gun owner to go through more scrutiny, mental health exam, longer wait period etc

This isn't about my individual rights this is more about the Safety of Society as a Whole.

[permatex]

219. Ummmmmmmmm

legislatures can't amend the 2A, you would need a 2/3 majority of states to agree to amend the BoR, think you'll get that?
I predict no.

[soccer1]

57. Yes, I would.....

or a rewording of it. But that's not going to happen.

[KamaAina]

58. No

BUT I would support a "strict constructionist" interpretation of it:

"A well-regulated (trained) militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and beatr arms shall not be infringed."

Funny how that first part tends to escape the notice of the NRA and such.

[PavePusher]

196. Please explain, through grammar, history and case law....

how that is a limiting condition on the Right of the People.

[KamaAina]

199. Clearly the framers intended for the right to be exercised within the framework of a militia

(i.e. National Guard), else why would they have put that in?

[PavePusher]

207. So, no citations. Got it. n/t

[SoCalDem]

60. It's too late for that, BUT

I would love to see what the founders had planned for our Constitution to be put into place. They realized that times would change, and that the constitution needed a generation "tweaking" every so often... (I think every 20 years was what they envisioned)

The 2nd amendment thing made sense back then. It was hard to arm and outfit an army, and since people hunted for food, and the army had gotten them all arms, it made sense for them to retain their guns and to be ready to go at a moment's notice if the British decided to take back the colonies (a real worry at the time). I'm sure none of them envisioned what today's guns would be, or that so many people would have the desire to build a personal arsenal.Back then people probably had ONE gun, and it was for hunting & protecting the family out in the woods from bears, wildcats, snakes & the locals who would do them harm. I don;t think they ever planned on people hunting other people for sport.

Had the every 20 years thing come to pass, there would have surely been some clarification of the 2nd amendment as time went along..

[Initech]

62. I hate guns but repealing the second amendment? No.

However I would gladly tell the NRA to shut the fuck up and where they can stick it...

[Daniel537]

66. No. n/t

[slackmaster]

71. It's refreshing to see No leading Yes by nearly 3 to 1

[4th law of robotics]

73. Every time someone gives a speech that incites others to riot and commit violence

"should we repeal the first amendment"

Everytime a murderer get's off because we had to give him a "fair" trial and goes on to kill again

"should we repeal the fifth amendment".

/sounds pretty sill doesn't?

[Erose999]

75. Would support scaling it back but not complete repeal.

[auburngrad82]

76. No, but I wouldn't mind seeing tighter laws. nt

[Tejas]

80. Sure, no sense in enforcing the ones we already have.

The revolving door for violent offenders is cool, huh?

[auburngrad82]

112. Sure, I love repeat offenders

I guess you didn't see my post the other day about a young lady, her boyfriend, and her four dogs who were seriously injured (all the dogs were killed) by a hit and run driver. Turns out the driver had three previous DUIs, earned his fourth the night they pulled him over after the hit and run and the night he ran the people over would have been his fifth. He was on probation and was driving with a suspended license. Obviously he should have been in jail but the laws are too lax to put him where he belongs.

Even after hitting the people, killing the four dogs, and ripping the boyfriend's leg off when he hit him at 80 miles per hours, he probably won't face a lot of jail time- at least not as much as his record indicates he should. That's because the laws aren't tough enough on drunk drivers.

We have very lax laws concerning gun ownership as well. I'd love to see them tightened a bit.

Oh, and did I mention I love repeat offenders?

[Tejas]

120. They're "repeat" because they don't care about laws.

Do you think making more laws is going to somehow scare them into being a productive member of society?

[auburngrad82]

121. I didn't say new laws, now did I?

I said we need to tighten the existing laws. Do you think leaving everything status quo is the solution? Doesn't seem to be working...

[Tejas]

124. Oh, okay, "tighten" as in.....what?

[auburngrad82]

136. I'm not going to bother

You can only see one side of the argument, and it's a waste of time.

[Tejas]

137. Well, if you refuse to give any examples then good luck on

convincing anyone of....?.....





WE NEED TO TIGHTEN THE LAWS!!!!!1!

how?

BY TIGHTENING THEM!!1!!!!!

uh, wait a sec...

ARGH!!!! YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN, GOODBYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zorra]

77. NFWIH. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws, and the 1% controlled cops/government, will have guns.

I am a non-violent person, committed to non-violently changing the system. But if the government gets too oppressive, and out of control, then at that time, I want to at least believe, have hope, that I have some ability to band together with my fellow citizens to fight off oppression. It might be a futile attempt, but I wish for myself, and my fellow citizens, to retain this possibility and hope, if the situation in our country ever comes down to that.

If you take away everyone's ability to defend themselves against oppression, you are just asking to be oppressed. It definitely can happen here.

At this time, we are only as free as the 1% allows us to be.

There's NFWIH that I'm going to let these greedy, self-serving, sociopathic plutarchs take away one of the few possible means I have left of defending myself from them, if the need to do this ever becomes universally recognized as critical among the people.

I realize that this may not be a favorable position among many, probably mostly urban, Democrats, but it is what it is. I grew up in the country, still live in the country, where just about everyone has firearms, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, other. Many women, men, and kids that grew up/grow up in rural areas know how to use firearms, and use them responsibly. I own my own hunting rifle, (and I know how to hunt; I was pretty good at it when I was young). That's the only gun I have. I haven't fired it since 1984 (I'm a vegetarian) and pretty much wouldn't harm any critterl unless I really, really needed to take a life for food. If it became necessary for me to use a firearm to be able to feed myself, family, or neighbors, I'd use it again, (after some serious practice).

I want to retain this option.

From the bottom of my heart, I never, ever want to have to feel like it is necessary to hurt another person. But if it ever comes down to protecting my family, my people, and my country against some form of universally recognized clear and present danger and imminent threat of total non-democratic violent oppression, I will not hesitate to join with my fellow citizens in resistance, and do whatever it takes to obtain democratic liberty.

One reason that I Occupy is to try to prevent the situation in this country from ever getting to that point. I don't want my children and grandchildren to have to live as helpless serfs in service of ruthless, greedy, conscienceless plutarchs.

The 2nd Amendment is part of our Constitution primarily for these very reasons, and I believe these reasons are totally valid.

[Tejas]

79. start with #1, repeal them all.

[Mimosa]

82. No

If one pilaster of the Bill of Rights is altered or removed then any and all would be subject to alteration or removal.

We may be entering an era in which citizens may need to defend our lives or the lives of those we love. I keep a weapon in my home. And I am well aware that guns used properly have saved lives. I know gun safety. I practice at the range as often as I can.

[rollin74]

83. hell no

[DiverDave]

87. I guess alot of people

that just opened an account here voted.

It doesnt say that individuals can own a weapon.
NOWHERE does it say that.

But because gun nuts packed the supreme court, we get what happened last night.
I think a reading comprehension class is needed.

Oh, and no...just interpret it the way it was meant.

[Tejas]

100. I guess you think the rest of the planet is gun-crime free?

UK, Australia, no RKBA...but they're crime free? No criminals shooting anyone, right?

[Mimosa]

106. Like me with nearly 9K posts?

Been posting on DU since 2003 or earlier.

There are a lot of liberals who believe in the Bill of Rights.

Violent crime are scary. Senseless murder sprees are traumatic. But disarming the majority of people will not stop criminals. Remember that Breitvak killer in Norway last year? Or the school shooting in the UK? Norway and the UK have strict gun control laws.

[Upton]

109. Yeah..for sure..

I opened my account 4 1/2 years ago just so I could vote "no" in this poll...

[PavePusher]

197. I am a "people", therefore the Right is mine.

What else you got?

[NewMoonTherian]

89. Only in favor of an expanded version.

Including explicit protection of the individual right to carry, among other things.

[closeupready]

98. Absolutely not.

nt

[Retrograde]

102. I support more emphasis on the "well-regulated" clause n/t

[apocalypsehow]

104. No: it should simply be interpreted correctly. Five right-wing scumbags on the Supreme Court

got it wrong, like they did with Plessey v. Ferguson a hundred years before that.

The 2nd amendment was not written to let every Bobo with an masculinity crises strut around town with a Phallic Replacement Device perched in their pants: it was written to allow the states to train, equip, and otherwise furnish during times of active duty a "militia" in lieu of Congress keeping a standing army.

Those days are over, of course, as we have a permanent standing military establishment now. Want to play with guns? Go join the National Guard, which is the only entity the 2nd amendment properly applies to.

[Upton]

107. No way...

[fascisthunter]

108. heck no.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. The Bill of Rights is untouchable.

There is no redo, repeal or edit. The acceptance of the Constitution that founded the current federal government was predicated upon the Bill of Rights being the law of the land. If you want to remove any part of it, you need to start over.

[HockeyMom]

131. Where were the CCW holders?

Silence. "An armed socieity is a safe society" according to the NRA. SILENCE from them now too. Yeah, right. BTW, there WERE people carrying guns when Gabriel Giffords, and the little girl, was shot. Did they shoot the perp? Nope. Who took the shooter down? An UNARMED MAN who tackled him.

Make you case gun owners.

[slackmaster]

175. Training is a good thing! Darkness, tear gas, a panicked crowd...

It's unlikely that anyone in the theater could have safely gotten a shot off.

I believe people should be trained before carrying a concealed firearm. The state of Colorado requires it. Proper training works.

http://www.coloradohandgunsafety.com/classes.htm#anchor01

[HockeyMom]

181. Did not answer my question.

Where were the CCW holders? No, Vets there either?

[slackmaster]

183. The answer to your question is unknown and unknowable

There may or may not have been CCW holders, veterans, off-duty police officers, or martial arts masters present. We will never know.

We DO know that the availability of legal concealed weapons permits in Colorado didn't make the situation any worse.

[HockeyMom]

185. It didn't HELP either

and that IS my point. Your guns aren't the answer to these kinds of situations.

[slackmaster]

188. If it does no harm, freedom of choice is inherently good

[slackmaster]

224. UPDATE - HockeyMom, I may have to revise my answer based on another thread...

A contributor who claims to have been to that theater has posted that there is a sign prohibiting firearms in the building.

If that is the case, then nobody was lawfully carrying a concealed weapon (i.e. there were no valid CCWers) in the theater.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002985577#post82

[beevul]

268. They were respecting the rules of the establishment.

The Century 16 Movie Theater where Holmes allegedly opened fire does not allow anyone to carry firearms on the premises even if they have a concealed handgun permits, said Dudley Brown, the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which lobbies against gun control laws.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/bloomberg-obama-romney-act-prevent-colorado-style-massacres/story?id=16819968&page=2

NOTE: Cinemark also owns Tinseltown, Cinearts, and Century Theatres


http://www.vcdl.org/static/gue.html#Cinemark

[PavePusher]

198. So now you want to ensure there is a lawfully armed person at every venue?

When did this change of heart come about?

[hack89]

281. Obeying the "no guns allowed" signs would be my guess. nt

[Taverner]

139. No - but I would support a National Curriculum to instill a sense of empathy in kids

This is long overdue

Empathy and ethics are needed, and this is not met

[Douglas Carpenter]

146. no, but it should be interpreted within the boundaries of reason and we need to adopt gun control

standards of a Western Democracy if we want to save thousands of lives every years.

[Raine]

159. No nt

[Zax2me]

162. I love the results of this poll.

Proving most here are thoughtful and calm even in times of despair.

[NashvilleLefty]

163. NO. Just because a few abuse it,

doesn't mean it should be repealed.

What we need is better education.

Also, there's a big difference between Urban and Rural situations. In Urban situations, there is no need for firearms except to kill another human being. In Rural situations, a gun can be necessary for protection against wild critters.

[moondust]

165. Yes, with some exceptions.

Ranchers and a few others who may actually NEED guns.

There was a place for the Second Amendment before there was a standing army.

Many other countries have exercised better judgment with regard to gun control and consequently have much, much, much lower violent crime rates.

Our long national nightmare continues...

[Marrah_G]

167. No

[reorg]

172. if you can ban Kinder chocolate

it shouldn't be so hard to ban guns, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_sale_or_import_into_the_United_States

[Great Caesars Ghost]

176. No, but it needs to be revised.

[sendero]

190. More wankery

You can repeal anything you want. There a millions upon millions of guns in this country and no mere law is going to begin to get rid of them.

[Vattel]

191. Not sure.

[bongbong]

204. Looks like

The Rendon Group has DU targeted.

[etherealtruth]

211. Not just yes, but, hell yes

Always have and always will.

[YOHABLO]

220. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE AMMO

Must have gone through a rigorous processs...for buying weapons ... and must carry a special identity card specifically to buy AMMUNITION!!! That gun will come to no one's harm if it doesn't have bullets.

[Drunken Irishman]

221. No. But I do support the ban on semi-automatics.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

222. Which ban? n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

223. Any ban that makes 'em illegal.

I don't believe semi-automatics should be legally purchased.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

227. What should be done...

...about the 150,000,000 that are already out there?

[Drunken Irishman]

228. I guess you deal with it, right?

I mean, what do you want me to say? I don't believe in semi-automatics. The fact they're legal peeves me. The fact there are thousands, if not millions (150,000,000, tho, really?) out there doesn't change my feelings on that. Would it be hard to control 'em? Sure. But give it a few decades of being illegal and that number will drop considerably.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

232. Most guns...

...sold today are semi-auto. There are semi-autos still around from over 100 years ago.
There are nearly 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US.

[Drunken Irishman]

236. Imagine how many will be out in 10, 20, 30 years...

And how many more innocent Americans will be slaughtered because we didn't step up and ban 'em when we had the chance.

Ban 'em. Make 'em illegal to own. I know that won't fix the whole problem, but it's a start. If you own one, and you're caught with it, you go to jail.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

243. That's rather unrealistic. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

244. I don't think so...

I hear most gun owners are law abiding citizens. So, if it's illegal to own a semi-automatic, those law abiding citizens would happily give theirs up. As for the ones already out there, it's tough, but the stricter you are, the harder it is to get. Had this ban been in place, it's unlikely a kid like the Colorado shooter gets the weapons needed to open fire. He could go through underground channels for sure, but the roadblocks would've been in place to potentially stop him from doing just that.

But you said it yourself, they're the most sold guns nowadays. Well, if we don't do anything about it, in fifteen, twenty years, they'll dominate our culture even more than they do now.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

247. I don't believe...

...the or availability of firearms is really the big problem. Bans on things have always been counterproductive and ineffective, IMHO.

So are you really Irish?

[Drunken Irishman]

252. So, what's the answer then?

I mean, if these were isolated moments that rarely happened, it would be easier to accept. Unfortunately, something is wrong with America and we're too afraid to talk about it. I don't think it's solely the gun problem. But something is wrong. While this happens in other countries, it's a rarity. Here? It's almost a yearly event, if not multiple-times a year. It's sad. It's awful and it needs to end.

Do I think banning guns will fix it all? No. But like I've said before, I really don't think people should be using semi-automatics. I think the ban, in the long run, would prove effective. Short term? You're absolutely right. It won't do a thing. But even the last ban, which lasted all of ten years, wasn't long enough for us to prove, disprove its effectiveness.

As for being Irish, no, well, I mean, I'm American - but all my ancestors came from Ireland.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

256. IMHO it's not a problem with only 1 dimension.

Many countries have adopted some form or universal healthcare that we have been very slow to accept. I hope many folks with issues relating to mental health that now go unaddressed will have needed care. There are issues (also IMHO) with individual states under-reporting mental issues sometimes because the state/federal rules of who to report don't match correctly or sometimes because there are conflicting issues with privacy and confidentiality.

Congrats on your fine ancestors:
May those who love us, love us; and those who don't love us, may God turn their hearts; and if He doesn't turn their hearts, may He turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping.

[Drunken Irishman]

257. I agree...

It's definitely deeper than just guns. But until we can get to it, the easiest task might just be to ban certain guns that do the biggest damage. I don't know. It won't ever happen, anyway, so it's all moot.

As for that quote, my mom has it hanging in her kitchen. :p

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

259. best always

my mom didn't have it hanging up anywhere

however, more than once i was told i was as good as half a dozen dead ones


boarding a red-eye home soon, hope to talk to you again

[cherokeeprogressive]

225. What a STUPID fucking question... Let's repeal the Bill of Rights! Yeah... THAT'S the ticket!

The very premise of repealing the Second Amendment is laughable. 37 states would have to vote YES to your question.

Ain't happenin'.

I'll bury my guns in the basement.

The very NOTION of living in a land where the government has guns and the citizens don't is something I won't tolerate. A citizenship unarmed is the kind of place where someone on a street corner can dime you for criticizing government policies (AND BE REWARDED FOR IT) and the government can come get you in the middle of the night. Don't tell me that can't happen here. I'm NOT stupid.

The day the government announces the "confiscate your guns" program is the day I start pointing my gun at every government vehicle that comes down my street.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

226. Gov. Rendell cited a law in his state,

a major hunting, pro-gun state that allows 12 guns purchased per year, one per month.

As he stated, "no one needs more than 12 guns per year." He went on to say most NRA/gun
members/owners do not agree with the NRA on many issues although, the NRA like to give the
public the impression they do.

Chris Rock said it best, “Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .”

[EX500rider]

235. So if he had no access to guns....

....and instead plowed his car at 100mph thru the crowd waiting outside before the movie and killed twice as many people what would we be calling to ban?

[JVS]

238. Any party openly going after part of the bill of rights will suffer severe election losses

[OhioChick]

239. No n/t

[cynatnite]

240. I only support tighter regulation, but not a repeal. n/t

[ChromeFoundry]

241. No. What's next? banning sporks?

And how would your view be on this issue if someone with a CCW put a stop to this before it reached the level that it did?

[slackmaster]

276. It is a slippery slope indeed

[treestar]

250. I could go for that

It's basically old fashioned and it gets in the way of sensible gun control laws.

I don't think it applies today. It's about the 18th century and about arms of the 18th century in that era's situation.

[Loudly]

254. That's just silly. No political support for that.

What you need is to shape SCOTUS and drag society kicking and screaming into modernity like we did in the 50s.

If we know anything from American history, it is that the legislators will always be captives of the fear, bias and bigotry of the voters.

[jody]

255. Repeal would not alter fact RKBA is still an unalienable right and would be protected by the 9th. nt

[limpyhobbler]

264. If the Democratic Party supported that, it would be the end of the party.

At least at the national level. Maybe in one or two states and DC this would be acceptable. In most of America this is crazy talk. America luvs guns.

This talk of ending the second amendment is way crazier than some stuff that gets shouted down as "fringe" on this site.

[TeamPooka]

270. Repeal and Replace!

[Sheepshank]

273. way too late to corrall those horses. n/t

[HappyMe]

275. No.

I don't like guns, nor do I own one.

If it was repealed, how would the gun ban be accomplished? Search every single home, apartment, car and storage locker?

Better enforcement of the laws we have would be a better thing.

[GarroHorus]

277. Still pleased the NO vote is over 70% nt

[Dash87]

278. Yes, and do a house-to-house confiscation of all guns in the US by SWAT teams.

Just kidding. Made you look, though.

No. It wouldn't do anything.

[caraher]

280. If nothing else it's very badly written

It would be better to rewrite it from scratch to reflect a modern understanding of its meaning - even if that understanding isn't one I subscribe to. At least then we'd know what we're dealing with.

All these arguments about the meanings of "militia," "well-regulated" and "infringed, not to mention comma placement, are all quite beside any point I could be interested in - which is, what is the proper status of gun ownership and its regulation in the context of our society today?