I'm proposing an idea that should satisfy both gun nuts AND liberals/progressives...

[FarLeftFist]

We keep the 2nd Amendment in place but we replace all guns with guns they used when 2nd Amendment was written. No clips, no automatic's sold to civilians. You have to place bullet in barrel, push down with loader, sprinkle gun powder, fire, repeat.

[Kingofalldems]

1. K and R

[nichomachus]

10. Well, that's what the Founders intended. Were they lunatics?

[Progressive dog]

26. That is not logic

I'm not going to explain this to you, take the time to think about how the internet differs from the press and then consider how nuclear weapons (or even assault rifles) differ from muskets.

[HockeyMom]

3. Ok, 22 RIFLES

Cannot be concealed and carried in public, but can protect in PRIVATE HOMES. If they want to hunt, they can with their rifles.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Actually it doesn't satisfy either

[apocalypsehow]

5. That would be a good start. A better one would be to interpret the 2nd amend

properly in the first place:

In our modern context, it should, if interpreted by the courts correctly, only apply to National Guard members on active duty while serving in defense of their country, or the state they live in doing rescue work, backup to law enforcement, etc.

That's what the Founders meant when they wrote it, only they were "militias" back then, and that's how they would tell us it should be interpreted in our modern context were they around today.

[obamanut2012]

6. Many liberals are gun owners

[SecularMotion]

22. And most gun nuts are conservatives

[obamanut2012]

37. I think some would consider all gun owners "gun nuts"

I was informed early today on here that I'm a member of the "pro gun lobby," whatever the hell that is, just because I own a gun. Another poster believes it is the duty (and should be the law) of every gun owner to have to educate the public about hyperviolence, and prove that they (said gun owner) aran't a criminal.

As Is aid, many of us are both liberals and gun owners.

[JoeyT]

42. That's the danger of being a prohibitionist.

The guy that has a glass of wine is just as much under the influence of demon alcohol as the guy that starts drinking gin at 8 in the morning.

Many of us would support a whole bunch of regulation, but they'll never have our support because they don't want regulation, they want an outright ban.

[Logical]

7. So you collect all normal guns first? n-t

[ileus]

8. Single shot 20ga shotguns.

Can be used to protect your home.

Can be used to hunt. Shot and Sabots/slugs.

Change the rules to allow 5" barrels w/pistol grip and they could even be CC'd

[Warpy]

9. Well, the powder goes in first, I'm afraid, then gets tamped down

with wadding, followed by the ball.

However, that doesn't serve people in rural areas well. Two shots are needed at the minimum: the first is to get the bears startled out of the garbage; the second is to drop the one bear in a million who charges.

Still, I'd love to see a drive by shootout between two cars full of punks using flint locks or even blunderbusses.

[auburngrad82]

15. The time it takes to load a muzzle loader is the cooling down period

hopefully by the time you get the damned thing loaded you're not angry at your wife any more.

[Ian David]

11. In Massachusetts, you don't need a permit for those. n/t

[JoePhilly]

13. A strict constructionist would agree with you ... or argue ...

that we should, as individuals, all be allowed to have nukes ... because after all, arms are arms.

[dreamnightwind]

34. That's the way I understand it too

A nuke in every home. Landmines in our front yards. Obviously the constitution was not meant to allow this, and the whole argument for constitutionally protected gun ownership collapses when viewed under its logical extensions.

[yellerpup]

14. K&R!

That is the perfect criteria.

[Mopar151]

16. Muzzle-loaders are far from idiot-proof

use them wrong, they kill at both ends......

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. Oh come on, think of the suffering and pain, for heaven's sake.

...in the gungeon.

[hack89]

18. And the 1st Amendment will not apply to electronic media? nt

[Mojorabbit]

20. +1000 nt

[Johnny Rico]

24. +10,000

[flamingdem]

19. I recommend th Long Rifle

[seabeyond]

21. my husband who is a gun owner is a firm believer in laws that restrict.... i am not sure

exactly what it is. but, he thinks there should be restriction.

[unblock]

23. i have a more workable idea.

just have MUCH stiffer penalties for crimes involving guns (whether loaded or not, whether brandished or not).

like 6 month suspended sentences become 6 years hard time.


the idea is simple -- you have a right to carry a gun, but if you choose to do so, you take on a major responsibility to stay within the strict confines of the law.

[flamingdem]

25. That won't stop a pyschopath, they want prison

and lots of victims.

Better prevention

[unblock]

27. my solution isn't nearly as effective, true; but it has a far better shot at becoming reality.

[Yavin4]

29. Chris Rock Had The Best Answer: Charge $5000 per bullet

Constitution says nothing about bullets.

[Johnny Rico]

30. I'm against such an absurd proposal, of course, but it would have one upside:

My ammunition inventory would be worth around $150 million. Hmm....

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. Yes - This

That routine is the best.

Let them put the bullets on layaway.

[DanTex]

33. Gun control seems to work pretty well in the rest of the world.

Every wealthy nation except for the US has gun violence under control. Sure, there are some illegal guns and black markets in Europe, Canada, Japan, etc., but overall there are far less guns and far less gun violence.

[DanTex]

44. Guns and drugs are completely different.

I'm not in favor of complete prohibition of guns. However, the blanket statement that "prohibition doesn't work" is incorrect. It depends what you are trying to prohibit, and guns are very different from drugs or alcohol. Whereas alcohol prohibition failed, and the drug war is not going very well, prohibition of guns has worked out very well, for example, in Japan. Sure, there are a few illegal guns in Japan, but for the most part, it is a gun-free society.

And, like I said, every other first-world country has stricter gun laws than the US, and in every single case, those gun laws are working better than the gun laws in the US in terms of preventing gun violence. There are places in the world, like Mexico, where gun laws are strict and yet there are illegal guns all over the place. But this is because Mexico is a borderline narco-state. If you look at places like Canada, UK, etc. that are comparable to the US, there is simply no basis for thinking that tighter gun laws would lead to a massive illegal gun smuggling.

[sibelian]

36. "Maybe people will think I am living in a dream world"

Your position makes even less sense than a dream.

[dreamnightwind]

35. And if you want something more modern

than what was allegedly protected in the constitution, you can have it with one tiny government mandated modification to the weapon: the barrel must be bent 180 degrees to point back at the bearer of the weapon.

[4th law of robotics]

39. And no speech more advanced than the hand operated printing press!

Also they didn't know about things like DNA and fingerprints. So those won't be included in the whole "illegal search and seizure" thing.

[belcffub]

41. the Girandoni Air Rifle existed about 10 years before the 2nd Amendment was written.

One was used by Lewis & Clark. They had a tube magazine containing 20 rounds, the ballistics of a .45 acp and an effective range out to 150 yards...

[HooptieWagon]

43. Won't work.

Someone will make a flintlock with a skeleton stock, and the gun-haters will scream "assault rifle"...

[sofa king]

45. Those are sometimes called "antique firearms."

Until 2006--and still all over the Internet today--it was widely believed that even convicted violent felons could own "primitive weapons" like muzzleloaders because they were specifically excepted from the definition of a "firearm" in some federal laws and in BATF regulations. The US Code offers this:

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

and

(16) The term “antique firearm” means—
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

That didn't wash with the Wyoming Supreme Court, in Harris v. State:

http://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/2006/446994.html

They concluded that since their state did not define "firearm," as the feds did, that the default dictionary definitions, rather than federal legal definitions, apply in Wyoming.

I tossed that up because asking Google the question revealed the trifecta of bad information sites: ask, wikianswers, and yahoo. Hilariously, I noticed that one of the "best answers" to the question of whether or not felons can own muzzleloaders was, "go to a law library and look it up." Idiots. Not even law students go to the law library anymore, unless they're looking for the notes some other, better student wrote in the margins of the books that are all scanned, digitized, and often freely available.

[Shankapotomus]

46. How about working on a non lethal

weapon? Surely, our scientists and engineers could figure this one out where a weapon can quickly incapacitate an attacker without killing them.

[NCTraveler]

47. John Kerry doesn't agree.

Is he not liberal/progressive?