Proposed 28th Amendment Y/N

[Greenridgeman]

Anti-gunners or pro-gunners, anyone can answer:





28th Amendment: he Second Amendment is repealed in its entirety, and the Congress shall make any and all laws affecting the sale, manufacture and possesion of firearms and ammunition, and any other implements of destruction as Congress sees fit.

[Peter1469]

No.

It would complete the tyrannical take over of the US. The concept of what America was created to be cannot exist without the 2nd Amendment.

[Greenridgeman]

No.

It would complete the tyrannical take over of the US. The concept of what America was created to be cannot exist without the 2nd Amendment.



What, you don't trust your Congress to do right?

We often hear libs say the right to bear arms should not be a right, but a privilege.

This would make it a privilege granted by Congress, as they seem to think, since the do not understand the present Second.

I am interested in the anti-gunners view, note, this does not ban a single gun.

[Chloe]

these are the kinds of threads that get me in trouble

[Greenridgeman]

these are the kinds of threads that get me in trouble

Take a stand.

This would simply hand the issue to Congress, make gun ownership a privilege, and not a right.

It would not ban or seize a single gun.

It would just let the crooks that are going to leave your generation trillions in debt in charge of the issue.

Vote.

[Peter1469]

these are the kinds of threads that get me in trouble

What restraint!

[jillian]

Anti-gunners or pro-gunners, anyone can answer:





28th Amendment: he Second Amendment is repealed in its entirety, and the Congress shall make any and all laws affecting the sale, manufacture and possesion of firearms and ammunition, and any other implements of destruction as Congress sees fit.

first i want to see the amendment that says no legislature can pass any law interfering with, affecting or otherwise discouraging the enforcement of my right to reproductive choice as set forth in roe v wade.

heller already protects the 2nd sufficiently.

[Chloe]

Take a stand.

This would simply hand the issue to Congress, make gun ownership a privilege, and not a right.

It would not ban or seize a single gun.

It would just let the crooks that are going to leave your generation trillions in debt in charge of the issue.

Vote.

nooo it would be simple to vote that's true but like 15 pages later i'd be having to apologize to like four or five of you guys for saying things out of anger or something

[Greenridgeman]

first i want to see the amendment that says no legislature can pass any law interfering with, affecting or otherwise discouraging the enforcement of my right to reproductive choice as set forth in roe v wade.

heller already protects the 2nd sufficiently.



Don't divert the thread from the topic, I asked for Y/N, not bloviation.

[Greenridgeman]

nooo it would be simple to vote that's true but like 15 pages later i'd be having to apologize to like four or five of you guys for saying things out of anger or something


Yes or no.

That is all you have to indicate, and leave the thread.

[Chloe]

Yes or no.

That is all you have to indicate, and leave the thread.

I'd probably say yes since it would mean that some meaningful gun control steps could possibly be taken, but at the same time i'd possibly say no since I don't think it would go far enough and would just be more rhetoric than actual gun control.

[Chloe]

but yes i'd probably vote for it since it would probably be better than what we have going right now

[Greenridgeman]

I'd probably say yes since it would mean that some meaningful gun control steps could possibly be taken, but at the same time i'd possibly say no since I don't think it would go far enough and would just be more rhetoric than actual gun control.

It would end the issue of whether we have a right to arms, and make it a privilege.

By far enough, are you afraid Congress would not ban guns?

What is far enough, in your opinion?

[Peter1469]

but yes i'd probably vote for it since it would probably be better than what we have going right now

No it wouldn't.

[Chloe]

It would end the issue of whether we have a right to arms, and make it a privilege.

By far enough, are you afraid Congress would not ban guns?

What is far enough, in your opinion?

I just meant that it would probably be some type of watered down compromise or something. Like for example it would start off as being a total ban on certain guns and stuff but end up being like a ban on diamond encrusted bullets or some nonsense like that.

[Peter1469]

I just meant that it would probably be some type of watered down compromise or something. Like for example it would start off as being a total ban on certain guns and stuff but end up being like a ban on diamond encrusted bullets or some nonsense like that.

It really is a waste of time. No proposed amendment to change the 2nd Amendment has any chance of passing.

[Greenridgeman]

No it wouldn't.


Her local gun laws have protected her, and she has never been or known a victim of a gun crime.

Seems Oregon is doing a good job.

I don't see what the problem is with things the way they are.

People who want strict gun control laws in their localities are content with high crime.

People who are not content with high crime do not want strict gun control laws in their localities.

Solve it on a local area as locals decide, I say.

[Peter1469]

I certainly agree that reasonable regulation is permissible under the 2nd Amendment.

[roadmaster]

If the government is ready to kill or jail many Americans, then more power to them, but not without a fight. I believe in the right to own guns.

[Greenridgeman]

It really is a waste of time. No proposed amendment to change the 2nd Amendment has any chance of passing.



That was not the point of the thread now was it?

[Chloe]

Her local gun laws have protected her, and she has never been or known a victim of a gun crime.

Seems Oregon is doing a good job.

I don't see what the problem is with things the way they are.

People who want strict gun control laws in their localities are content with high crime.

People who are not content with high crime do not want strict gun control laws in their localities.

Solve it on a local area as locals decide, I say.

I'd be slightly ok with an amendment basically making gun laws a state decision and not a national right if it meant some sort of change to the current belief around the 2nd amendment.

[Chloe]

No it wouldn't.

It's ok you don't have to try to prove me wrong or anything. I'm sure later on tonight while i'm sleeping Zelmo will be here to pick on every sentence that I type :)

[Peter1469]

I'd be slightly ok with an amendment basically making gun laws a state decision and not a national right if it meant some sort of change to the current belief around the 2nd amendment.

States can craft gun regulations on their own without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment. So long as they allow people to own firearms. As I said earlier, I don't think that the 2nd Amendment mandates carry concealed.

[Greenridgeman]

States can craft gun regulations on their own without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment. So long as they allow people to own firearms. As I said earlier, I don't think that the 2nd Amendment mandates carry concealed.


We have concealed, it is fairly expensive and must be renewed every year.

We have the right to a gun in the car though, so, I have little problem.

Why get out of the car anywhere you need a gun?

If I do feel the need to carry though, I do.

Fine is less than two years permit and instructors fees.

[roadmaster]

It's a privilege now to own a gun if you are an honest person. We all know felons get their hands on them.

[Greenridgeman]

It's a privilege now to own a gun if you are an honest person. We all know felons get their hands on them.


Notice, unless I missed one, not one anti-gunner has come out willing to put the gun question entirely in the hands of Congress.

[Peter1469]

We have concealed, it is fairly expensive and must be renewed every year.

We have the right to a gun in the car though, so, I have little problem.

Why get out of the car anywhere you need a gun?

If I do feel the need to carry though, I do.

Fine is less than two years permit and instructors fees.

It is easy to get a carry conceal permit here. I had one and let it lapse.

[roadmaster]

Notice, unless I missed one, not one anti-gunner has come out willing to put the gun question entirely in the hands of Congress. Yes

[pjohns]

What, you don't trust your Congress to do right?


Presumably, these words are being uttered tongue-in-cheek...

[patrickt]

No. I'm holding out for the left to propose an amendment that rejects the Constitution in it's entirety.

[zelmo1234]

first i want to see the amendment that says no legislature can pass any law interfering with, affecting or otherwise discouraging the enforcement of my right to reproductive choice as set forth in roe v wade.

heller already protects the 2nd sufficiently.

Right after the amendment that says you are responsible for your own life, and others are not obligated to take care of poeple that choose to be lazy!

We can call it the freedom to starve act!

[zelmo1234]

It's ok you don't have to try to prove me wrong or anything. I'm sure later on tonight while i'm sleeping Zelmo will be here to pick on every sentence that I type :)

Only until you actually answer why it is that the areas, Including Australia, and the UK, that have the most strick gun laws.

Also have the most violent crime! If you can really make a factual and not an emotional argument, then we are talking!

The way I see it you are a brilliant young lady that is highly uneducated when it comes to what guns are, can do and how they are used! You are very affraid of law abiding citizens having them, and unwilling to gain the knowledge that might cause you to change the view you have become comfortable with

[Mainecoons]

No. I'm holding out for the left to propose an amendment that rejects the Constitution in it's entirety.

You don't need it. Starting with Wilson, they've been dismantling piece by piece and the job is mostly done at this point.

[Greenridgeman]

You don't need it. Starting with Wilson, they've been dismantling piece by piece and the job is mostly done at this point.




The Constitution was finished when the 14th Amendent was passed at bayonet point.

[Chris]

nooo it would be simple to vote that's true but like 15 pages later i'd be having to apologize to like four or five of you guys for saying things out of anger or something
Chloe: Separate out the personal from the political.



I vote no.

[KC]

I would be opposed to an amendment like that, but I think this thread allows for an awesome debate: if you ignore the constitutional argument, is there still a good reason to prevent the federal government from making laws controlling ownership, sale or manufacture of weapons?

I would still say yes, the federal government should make no laws regarding firearms, but there are other things the federal government does that I believe are not Constitutional, but think the Constitution should be amended to allow.

[Greenridgeman]

I would be opposed to an amendment like that, but I think this thread allows for an awesome debate: if you ignore the constitutional argument, is there still a good reason to prevent the federal government from making laws controlling ownership, sale or manufacture of weapons?

I would still say yes, the federal government should make no laws regarding firearms, but there are other things the federal government does that I believe are not Constitutional, but think the Constitution should be amended to allow.


Examples?


I take that as a no on the amendment.

[BB-35]

No......

[KC]

Examples?


I take that as a no on the amendment.

Yes, that's a no on the amenment. I would like the Constitution to explicitly state the power of the Fed'l government to regulate environmental features (like the Chesapeake Bay) that don't follow under the jurisdiction of any particular state or that fall under the jurisdiction of several different states.

Without the fed to step in action simply doesn't happen. It's the same problem with the hallway of my apartment building; no one cleans or vacuums it because there is no way to concentrate the benefits of a clean hallway in order to benefit a specific tenet. Everyone's attitude is that they shouldn't have to clean up for every one else's benefit, and every one is right.

[Greenridgeman]

Yes, that's a no on the amenment. I would like the Constitution to explicitly state the power of the Fed'l government to regulate environmental features (like the Chesapeake Bay) that don't follow under the jurisdiction of any particular state or that fall under the jurisdiction of several different states.

Without the fed to step in action simply doesn't happen. It's the same problem with the hallway of my apartment building; no one cleans or vacuums it because there is no way to concentrate the benefits of a clean hallway in order to benefit a specific tenet. Everyone's attitude is that they shouldn't have to clean up for every one else's benefit, and every one is right.


There are literally thousands of federal regulations of wetlands, tidelands and estuaries.

I hardly think this is a constitutional issue.

[Taxcutter]

No.

Only a Democrat could love an abomination like that.

[simpsonofpg]

Absolutely no.

[jillian]

Don't divert the thread from the topic, I asked for Y/N, not bloviation.

and i answered you.

i'm sorry if you only like certain constitutional protections. but that's really not my problem.

as for the fact that you "want" a y/n...

also not my problem. but it's good to want.

[Private Pickle]

Anti-gunners or pro-gunners, anyone can answer:





28th Amendment: he Second Amendment is repealed in its entirety, and the Congress shall make any and all laws affecting the sale, manufacture and possesion of firearms and ammunition, and any other implements of destruction as Congress sees fit.

No and technically it would be the last Amendment that one would be able to physically fight for... Any Amendment after that one is easy pickens.