How would you draft the Second Anendnent to be amended?

[Oeditpus Rex]

If indeed you would at all?

I'm still working on mine, but it'd go something like this:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the legal description of 'arms' and with 'keep and bear' subject to regulation and qualification presxribed by law, shall be upheld."

I gotta nake it simpler and clearer, but that's the gist of it.

(Of course,the"regulations" and⅚ "qualifications" would have to also be defined, but in legislation, not in the Amendment. They'd make it far too long.)

You?

[sop]

1. Change "shall not be infringed" to "shall also be well regulated."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall also be well regulated."

[OC375]

2. Self Defense...

…being a basic human right, the right of the individual to bear personal arms in defense of themselves or others shall not be infringed.

[Kaleva]

3. A 6 shot revolver would be sufficient in many cases for self defense

Would you say that anything more than that be regulated or even banned?

[indusurb]

5. Not a six shot revolver

12 gauge shotgun, either pump or double barrel. Long recognized as the best weapon for home or self defense, as well as dealing with nasty critters around the farm.

[Kaleva]

10. I would agree with you there

For some, a pump or double barreled shotgun would be a better choice.

[OC375]

12. Yes

At a certain point guns become overkill for the intended purpose, personal self defense here. At that point there needs to be regulation of the guns themselves and not just the people who can access them. Where society draws those lines are where everyone disagrees, unfortunately. It's a tough nut to crack, IMHO.

To answer directly... I don't know if I'd draw a line at 6 shot revolvers and shotguns, per se, but I know we don't need 33rd capable Glocks that can be converted to full-auto to be generally available either. Between the two is probably a compromise, though I don't have anything prescriptive to add there. I sorta of thought detaching 2A from "weapons suitable for militia use" doctrine to "weapons suitable for personal self defense use" might move the onus on the courts to interpret with a more "use these to defend yourself in towns" mindset than "use these to fight national threats" mindset ie: militia.

YMMV

[Kaleva]

24. +1

[Blues Heron]

4. The US is a gun free zone, if you are caught possessing, firing or manufacturing one you will be deported

To South Sudan.

[indusurb]

6. What about those rural poor who hunt out of necessity?

What about those who live in rural areas, where help is a long time away? What about farmers who have to deal with rabid foxes, nasty snakes, etc.?
Should guns be better regulated, yes, but an outright ban is not the answer.

[Blues Heron]

7. To them I would say fucking deal bro

[indusurb]

9. Really, so you're telling me, your fellow liberals and Democrats, to "just deal", why?

Some underlying bias against all things rural?

So what do you want us rural folks to do about rabid foxes, skunks, etc.? Or deer with chronic wasting disease on our property? Let those animals infect entire populations and pass it on to humans? What are you going to tell that rural parent whose family depends on that deer in the freezer to keep their family fed throughout the year? Just deal?

What are you going to say to women or members of the LGBQT community who feel, rightly so, that they need a gun for self defense? Just deal? How do you think that will work out?

Yes, we need better firearm regulations and training. But blanket solutions such as just deal are as stupid as the guns for all situation we have now. Blanket solutions in general, with any problem, are generally foolish and counterproductive

[Blues Heron]

11. Lol skunks, yeah let's have a bunch of dead kids every week because some guy has skunks

Makes a LOT of sense, not.

[sop]

17. I remember when most rural folks had a double-barreled shotgun, a bolt action .22 and a lever action deer rifle.

Now many own arsenals of high capacity semi-automatic weapons designed for war, along with huge stockpiles of ammunition. That sort of firepower isn't needed to dispatch a skunk, bag a deer or defend one's home, only to kill lots of people very quickly.

[indusurb]

19. Agreed, but a shotgunis still needed out here

And for those who hunt, so is something like a 30-06, and or that bolt action .22. Blanket eradication is foolish, but getting rid of the war weapons, certainly.

[sop]

21. Don't see many mass murderers with double barreled shotguns or bolt action deer rifles.

Not saying it's impossible to kill a lot of people using a pump-action shotgun with a three-round capacity, just very unlikely. Most disturbed mass shooters see themselves as efficient killing machines, using the most lethal weapons capable of killing as many people as quickly as possible. No civilian (maybe not even most law enforcement) should be allowed to own high capacity semi-automatic rifles, pistols or shotguns.

Personally, I would limit private gun ownership to the type of weapons available when the Second Amendment was written: muzzle-loading muskets, pistols and shotguns. People were shooting skunks, killing deer and defending their homes with such weapons long before the NRA became a lobbying organization for the domestic arms industry.

[CTyankee]

23. Is there no other country that deals with "rabid foxes, skunks etc" AND regulates guns successfully to whom we can look?

Why don't we see what they are doing?

[Fla_Democrat]

34. Let them eat cake.

I did not have that one on my BINGO card.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. Nothing - until the

3/5 Compromise and Electoral College are eliminated.

Anything else would be a return to the status quo of a broken system and broken institutions.

We can't define the 'people' until all people are created equally and have an equal voice (one person, one vote) for the CiC.

[Heidi]

18. THIS RIGHT HERE.

We can't define the 'people' until all people are created equally and have an equal voice (one person, one vote) for the CiC.

[Captain Stern]

28. The 3/5 compromise was repealed over 150 years ago. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

35. No it wasn't

Our lived experience outweighs lies about equality.

[Captain Stern]

36. Yeah, it was.

The 3/5 compromise was eliminated by the 14th amendment. That's just a fact.

It's elimination certainly doesn't mean inequalities stopped existing then, or don't still exist now.

But, to call for the elimination of the 3/5 compromise ( a very specific thing) that no longer exists, just doesn't make sense.

[JustAnotherGen]

37. No it wasn't

That's why we have an Electoral College. It is the driver for the structural racism of elections.


And this is why the party is losing Black women. Lots of *cute* things on paper that don't amount to shit. Why next - someone will tell me that racism has been outlawed!

[Captain Stern]

38. Please be careful while moving those goalposts.

My understanding is that those things are quite heavy.

You clearly called for the elimination of the 3/5 compromise..AND..the Electoral College.

I'm with you on the Electoral College part....but, the 3/5 compromise has been over, and done with, for quite a while .

[JustAnotherGen]

39. This is why i hate America

I really have to do this?

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-2/clause-3/

Clause 3 Seats
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

ArtI.S2.C3.1 Enumeration Clause and Apportioning Seats in the House of Representatives

Can you show me a copy where it has been deleted? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate the EC without the removal of the language.

Have you ever heard of Jim Crow? My father was born and raised in in (1941). 73 years after the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is cute on paper but still did not assign FULL.Humanity.

You do realize that it meant nothing. Right? Like until the CRA? That Structural Racism in America is due to the WORDS of the Founding Dirtbags? Those words drove 77 million people to vote for a racist, rapist Fascist last November.

And now, the CRA is being diminished to nothing just as the VRA has been diminished to nothing.

It's great to believe all of that 4th of July nonsense - but we aren't going back to that. Set the whole document on fire and start over.

Okay - what goal post did I move now? The one where folks can't piss on my back and tell me it's raining?

[Captain Stern]

40. The 3/5 compromise isn't a metaphor for assigning humanity.

It was a very specific law.

It essentially said that for the purposes of assigning representatives, that each slave would only count as 3/5 of a person. The south would have rather each slave count as 5/5 of a person. The north would rather they have counted as 0/5 of a person.
The compromise was 3/5.

When slavery was eliminated, the 3/5 compromise, by definition, was also eliminated. That's not an opinion...that's an objective fact. It's observable, and measurable.

That doesn't mean that everyone was automatically treated justly. We know that isn't true. That is also an objective fact.

It also doesn't mean everyone is treated justly now. That's also an objective fact.

When folks call for the elimination of the Electoral College, they are calling for the elimination of a law that still exists. They are calling for a change to a law that is still in effect. It's clear that it's still in effect. It is the law of the land. It would be difficult to eliminate it, but eliminating it is still a tangible objective.

But calling for the elimination of the 3/5 compromise is not. The 3/5 compromise is no longer the law of the land. Every citizen (regardless of whether or not they are treated justly) accounts for 5/5 of a person when it comes to representational apportionment.

[Freddie]

13. If states can end abortions

They should also be able to highly regulate guns. Of course the gun humpers will jump right in with “it’s a constitutional right!” The constitution can be amended to allow states to make their own gun laws. I have no problem with guns for hunting Bambi. It’s hunting humans I have an issue with.

[myohmy2]

14. change...

...the word 'right' to 'privilege' then treat owning a gun like owning and using a car...

...the fed's can set the basic's and the states can fine tune it...

...

[Jilly_in_VA]

26. I'll buy that

Guns should be licensed and insured, just like automobiles. No exceptions.

[dumbcat]

29. Then ....

... there is no need for it to be in the Bill of "Rights". Just amend the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety and regulate away.

[myohmy2]

32. it...

...might be easier to change one word than dumping the entire 2nd Amendment...

...you'd still have a god-given right to the privilege of owning a firearm...

...

[dumbcat]

41. Hmmmmm ......

So now we would have a Bill of Privileges?

"...a god-given right to the privilege of owning a firearm..."

How does that work" What is a RIGHT to a PRIVILEDGE?

[myohmy2]

42. don't...

...confuse me...

...

[EnergizedLib]

15. I'd scrap it entirely and eradicate all guns

[indusurb]

16. That's nice, now what would you do in the real world

Guns are necessary for certain people, for certain purposes. Are you going to deny a gun to poor families who hunt for subsistence? Are you going to deny members of the LGBTQ community who need guns for self defense?

Guns are tools. Yes, they have been abused, badly. But getting rid of guns(and you'll never get rid of all of them) is not the answer. Better regulations, better training, yes. But blanket getting rid of them opens a whole other can of worms.

[DavidDvorkin]

20. I would eliminate it

Delete it.

[CTyankee]

27. I agree with you. It doesn't belong in the Bill of Rights.

[Fullduplexxx]

22. Remove it completely

[WarGamer]

25. Yeah regulation has been the weasel word for 200+ years.

Really need to hammer it down tightly. Won't do any good to define regulation in Congress in 2029... if it can be changed in 2033.

[GJGCA]

30. Limit Congress...

Not the States?

Congress shall make no law infringing the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

[Xavier Breath]

31. Maybe bad we can fit it to meet Chris Rock's bit about gun control.

You can have as many guns as you want, but each bullet will cost $5,000.00 each.

[Buckeyeblue]

33. It doesn't need to be amended it needs to be interpreted correctly

Can people have guns? Yes. Can states fed/states regulate what guns are legal? Yes. Can Fed/states ban individuals who have met certain conditions from owning guns? Yes

No one needs a military assault weapon.

[Mz Pip]

43. "Well regulated"

Those words are pretty much ignored by the NRA gun lobbies.

[David__77]

44. I'm not interested in increasing police power in this country.