Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

21 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	8 (38%)
	No
	13 (62%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[baldguy]

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

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

[Kalidurga]

2. Had to vote yes...

but what I really mean is amend. We need to define well-regulated. We need to define militia. Also, someone had the idea that guns owners should be required to have insurance on their guns. I think this is a very reasonable proposition.

[soccer1]

14. Why should gun owners be required to have insurance on their guns?

[orpupilofnature57]

3. I voted No .

[-..__...]

4. How many repeal/rewrite the 2nd amendemnt threads have been posted here...

within the last 72 hours?

[orpupilofnature57]

25. Half as many as there willl be in a week.

[Warpy]

5. Repeal, no. Modify, yes.

It's very poorly written as is and open to too much misinterpretation by both sides.

[Tx4obama]

6. The solution is to ban assault rifles and multiple round magazines.

Neither is needed for deer hunting or self-defense.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

7. Exactly.

[Marinedem]

9. What is a "multiple round magazine"

How many rounds will your Lordship allow me to use in a gun at a time?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

23. Six is all you'd get if I had my way.

Do you plan on going to war with a small army in your neighborhood?

[TheKentuckian]

15. What is your definition of the function of an assault weapon and why do you

argue a person only needs a single shot for hunting or even more so self defense?

[OhioChick]

8. Poll from Friday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=979625

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Sorry, just had to say I love you signature line n/t

[OhioChick]

12. Thanks

[UnrepentantLiberal]

11. I didn't see that.

Should I delete mine?

Edit: I guess I did see it and voted. I'm losing my mind.

[OhioChick]

13. You could see how the weekend crowd feels

Can't hurt. Just leave it.

[SoutherDem]

16. May I make a suggestion?

Don't make it all or nothing. Include clarifying or changing with some ways as to how it would change, rather than an all or nothing.
Should we repeal the 2A? Some may say yes even though they don't want to ban all guns. Some may say no even though they don't support all guns, they just want some guns. The problem with this argument is it may not be all or nothing but it is sold as all or nothing. While technically to change it it may take repeal and replace, that needs to be an option.

As long as the poll is yes or no you really will not get good results but you may get the results you are hoping for no matter how meaningless it may be.

I voted pass. It is simply not yes or no.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

17. That's a good idea.

Can you create that poll? You'd probably phrase the question better than I would.

[SoutherDem]

18. I will give it a shot. No pun intended.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

19. One shot is fine.

No need for a 100 round clip.

Can you link to it here so I can find it?

[SoutherDem]

21. Here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021002563

I think the clip is covered in one of the questions.

[SoutherDem]

20. New Poll posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021002563

[UnrepentantLiberal]

22. Excellent poll.

More options were needed.

[joshcryer]

24. When I saw this poll my mind almost exploded because I was seeing...

...what wasn't there. ie, as your post points out it's an all or nothing proposition. Your other poll makes me rest easier and it confirms that what I was seeing was just an anomaly.

[liberal N proud]

26. I am not in favor of guns but no we should not touch the second amendment. What we should do...

Is reinstate mental health treatment in this country.

[doc03]

27. No but there should be some common sence laws to own a gun

and some restrictions the type of gun and magazine capacities.

[veganlush]

28. we should just apply it honestly

nobody can convince me that that they said "well regulated militia" for no reason, first of all. Secondly, when it was ratified, "arms" meant something totally different than it does today. If they meant any weapon that we come up with, any "arms" at all, then suitcase nukes and flame throwers and nuclear warheads and dirty bombs belong not just in every home if you want one (as many as you want) but we also should be able to walk down the street or go into any place with any and all of these things anytime, or the "shall not be infringed" is meaningless.

But the weirdest part of all this is reason given: that we all need the ability to be armed against a "tyrannical government" yet it's the leaders of government, the ones that the NRA keep it their pockets, that are almost immune to the effects of these weapons being everywhere. remember when people complained about congressmen getting perks that we, their employers don't get? Like better healthcare choices, etc? Congressmen that live in the NRA's pocket should be required to hold regular, gabby giffords style open-air townhall meetings at parking lots, etc, having no more protection than the rest of us have going to the mall or the movies. Then you would see some real action on gun control and really, really fast.

[ErikJ]

29. Yes, it was for state MILITIAS not individuals.