Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

True or false

someone who owns a firearm that can fire two shots in 4 seconds (which is easy for a 1790 double barrel shotgun) can easily contemplate a firearm that shoots 20 shots in four seconds.

 

I posted images of several multi-shot firearms available in the 1700s, one of which fires from a revolving cylinder, the others from several revolving barrels (which isnt meaningfully different). If thats not a revolver, what would you call it?

Doesnt really matter what u call it, the point is that firearms that could be used to commit mass murder existed when and before the 2A was written, and the writers damn well knew it. Didn't matter because those same weapons were and are just as useful to the purpose of the 2A- defense.

 

The Colt Paterson revolver was the first practical revolving-cylinder handgun ever made. Invented by Samuel Colt in 1831 and patented in 1836

 

The Puckle guns were rare and used primarily on British ships. The 1st practical and available revolver didn't happen until 1836-- the Colt. As far as i know your other multi shots were novel, rare and not in common use you couldn't go down to the store and purchase one.

 

I substantiated my position.

You haven't substantiated yours.

 

The 1st practical and commonly available revolver didn't occur till 1836 the Colt.

The primary reason second amendment types argue, 'to fight against government tyranny', there is NOTHING in the constitution that legitimizes uprisings, and, in fact, the militia clause dictates that suppressing uprisings are one of THE reasons for militias. In modernity, the militia has become the national guard. If the **** really hits the fan, our national guard has a back up, the army, airforce and marines. So, if you think our government is overreaching, and you think you and your gun nutter buddies in their pretend military garbs, are going to emerge from your weekend paint ball sessions and engage in an uprising against a 2 million man fighting force, complete with aircraft, tanks, howitzers, 50 caliber machine guns -- modern artillery, elite fighting men, etc., you are going to get crushed, and if you get lucky and manage to hang on to your sorry carcass good enough to sit in court, you are going to be indicted, convicted, and incarcerated, just ask any of the 1000 morons who attacked the capitol (many citing 'this is our 1776') who were thinking that precise argument and who are now in jail.

Now then, let's recall the argument in the OP. The OP is not suggesting banning guns, not all guns, anyway (allowing municipalties to ban handguns should they see fit, as was the case in Washington DC for over 100 years), because America has a long tradition of firearm ownership for the other intended purpose of self-defense and hunting. . But,we have all sorts of evry day stuff, cars, tools, kitchen utensils, carpets, drapes, housing, all sorts of stuff that the framers didn't see as necessary as enshrining as a right. So, when you consider firearms, sans the romanticized notions of fighting tyranny, guns are part of every day American life, and, as such, there is no real reason to enshrine gun ownership as a 'right' no more than carpets, horses, houses, ironing boards, etc., should be enshrined in the constitution as a 'right. Given that the second amendment, statistically speaking, compared to other countries, 2a hasn't served America very well, plus the fact that research studies show that sensible gun regulation saves lives, plus the fact that because gun ownership is a right, that fact that it is a 'right' is the primary obstacle preventing many states and municipalities from regulating guns as they see fit. My view is that states and municipalities should have the right to regulate guns as they see fit. Given Americans incessant abuse of this right (as shown by the statistics of gun related deaths, all gun related deaths, not just those of crimes) I say we should take 'right' away because Americans no longer deserve it (I repeat, I did NOT say 'take all guns away', I said allow states and municipalities to regulate guns as they see if. WE could replace the second amendment with another amendment that repeals the right, but disallows states from banning guns altogether, and limit banning only to municipalities and only for handguns. At the minimum, we should repeal Heller (it was only recent, it was the ruling that ended the 'individual versus collective' argument ' and it was voted in on a party line vote, hardly the kind of ruling that sets a strong precedent) and let Washington DC restore it's ban against handguns, which should be the right of any municipality. That's my argument. But, of course, second amendment types will disagree but I disagree with them, and I really don't give a damn about what life was like in the late 17th century and 'fighting tyranny' is, in modernity, a stupid argument, hell, if you go back to the late 17th century, many states, specifically Virginia wanted the militia for slave patrols (read Patrick Henry's oratory given at the Constitution ratification convention ). Things are different now.

1. Gun regs save lives.
2. Sans the romantic notion of fighting tyranny, which, given the Us military is a moot point, guns are just every day things like horses, cars, houses, carpets, etc, which are not rights
3. As evidenced by statistics of gun related deaths compared to other countries, Americans have abused the 'right'.
4. Municipalities should have the right to ban handguns

Heller is a recent ruling, and won only on a partly line vote, not a strong precedent.

For me, the solution is to repeal the second amendment, replace with an amendment that doesn't make firearms a right, but disallows states from banning
long guns, and only allows states to regulate all guns and weapons, but limits only municipalities to ban handguns, as they see fit. Here, firearm ownership would become a 'penumbra right', and not an enshrined right. And the reason for this is that it will give states more control over firearm regulation and not have to fight the NRA every time they want to vote in a gun reg.

 

The 10th Amendment does not prevent the federal government from regulating guns. The 10th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the regulation of firearms is a legitimate exercise of the federal government's authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

For example, in the landmark case of United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to regulate firearms that have a connection to interstate commerce. In more recent cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (200 and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, but also made clear that this right is not unlimited and subject to reasonable regulation.

And, regarding 'to the people', while the constitution protects individual rights, it also grants the federal government the power to regulate these rights to some extent. This is because the Constitution recognizes that there may be circumstances in which the exercise of a particular right may need to be restricted for the greater good, such as for public safety or to promote the general welfare.

 

The Puckle gun, also known as the Defense Gun or the Revolving Gun, was an early prototype of a machine gun invented in the late 17th century. The Puckle gun was patented in 1718 by James Puckle, and was one of the first firearms to use a crank mechanism to rotate the cylinder and fire multiple rounds in quick succession.

However, the Puckle gun was not widely used in the l17th century, as it was not yet commercially available. The weapon was intended for use by the British military as a defense against pirates and other sea-borne threats, but it was never widely adopted. Despite its innovative design, the Puckle gun had several technical limitations that made it unreliable in combat and it was eventually replaced by more advanced firearms.

While the Puckle gun is considered to be one of the earliest examples of a machine gun, it was not widely used in the late 17th century and was more of a novelty and a proof of concept than a practical weapon.

It's worth noting that in the 18th century, while these firearms (the Pepper Box pistol and Kaltoff repeater) were innovative for their time, they were not as widely used as muskets and other single-shot firearms. The technology for repeating firearms was still in its early stages, and these weapons were more expensive, less reliable, and less accurate than muskets.

 

Gun regs do not save lives, keeping violent criminals behind bars saves lives.
Your plan ***** the bed when you wake up and realize those American soldiers don’t want to kill other Americans many of whom were soldiers or law enforcement.
The only evidence you have is that criminals do not buy guns nor do they abide by any laws.

shall not be infringed, that’s very clear.

again, why are you going after the law abiding group and not the criminals? Why such and open display of cowardice?

 

Is yours a statement of ignorance, or dishonesty?

 

Irrelevant to your claim.

 

we both know what FDR did with the incredibly dishonest expansion of the commerce clause but can you cite ANY LANGUAGE in the Constitution or subsequent amendments that even hint at a federal gun control power over individual private citizens. Your last paragraph is absolute fictional claims

 

Are you trying to deny that the founders had NO POSSIBLE belief that faster firing firearms were on the horizon? Because that is what you must argue in order to have a valid point on this subject

 

Imagine trying to attack legal citizens with American troops, who we know good and damned well aren't going to shoot their own families. That's what OP thinks is a reality.

 

Your "substantiation", such as it is, revolves around the legal uses of a prefatory clause.
You stated the prefatory clause, as a part of grammar, did not exist:

Scalia has invented grammar that did not exist at the time 2A

And that, you have nor substantiated.
Thus, your statement, an outright falsehood

 

No, it is not an idea whose time has come.

Do the math: There are 50 states. How many need to ratify a new amendment? How many have constitutional or permitless carry laws on the books? See how that doesn't add? Ok then.

 

Let me ask you a question and I hope you will be honest.

What has your public position on police brutality been? If I go scanning a few George Floyd or other hot button police brutality story threads, am I going to find you chanting FTP ACAB? Am I going to find you pointing out the police lack the training, the discipline, the resources, and the pay, to truly put themselves at great risk for the public upholding its laws without basically acting like a criminal gang immune to prosecution?

You gonna want THOSE dumbasses rounding up the arms of fully half the population?

 

Facebook is not the ****ing government.
It cannot violate your 1st amendment rights....

 

What the hell is the deal with these right-wingers that jump into a discussion without bothering to find out what it's about!

 

1) Cruickshank has nothing to do with Facebook or why its not a violation when facebook does it. Cruickshank is about the various governments, about federalism. Facebook is a private entity and has no mention in such a case. Ergo its not the 'same reason'.
2) Not right wing. Libertarian. Say it with me. LIB-ER-TAR-IAN
3) I understand what your comment is about, I'm simply correcting your misapprehension as to the law.

 

If argue it isn't a private entity. Corporate welfare is tax dollars going to companies and no doubt Facebook gets some

How can you be a libertarian and not understand corporate welfare?

No you aren't you're calling a corporate entity that receives welfare as a private entity.

 

Its a private entity. Taking money to provide a product or service to the government is a simple transaction. A vendor does not join the government simply because it provides a for pay service. The government paying the vendor to do the thing is the tortfeasor. IT, the government, cannot command violations of rights from private or public actors.
That doesn't make private actors part of the government. That makes the government responsible for the actions they dictated their mercenary engage in.

Corporate welfare you assume I have no issue with. You know what they say about assuming things.

It remains a private entity. The payments need to cease as an improper function of government, that doesn't mean we now have facebook as part of the the department of homeland security or some ****ing non-sense.

 

Yeah...well... that clearly indicates that you didn't understand what my comment was about. I say Trump being banned from twitter is NOT a violation of his constitutional rights.... and you respond "Wrong! It's NOT a violation of his constitutional rights" And that's what you call "correcting".

Maybe you should've left it at "you didn't read the context". Because the only thing worse than responding to a post without reading it, is to read it and not understand it.

 

You mentioned facebook, in point of fact. TO an incredibly in depth post about federalism described in Cruiskshank, you responded that was the SAME REASON facebook banning trump wasn't a violation of right.
They're not the same reason. Facebook has nothing to do with federalism. Again: Correcting your misapprehension of the law.

 

Oh. so your "correction" was that it wasn't a violation on FACEBOOK, but it is on twitter.

No! I only responded to what I quoted. And you have illustrated why (despite the complaints of some) I ONLY quote what I respond to.

So now I understand. What you did above was ALTER my response by inserting into my answer a complete post that I have no interest on commenting about. Now we need to add dishonesty to you not reading or understanding what you responded to.

Look... just... next time please try to read what you are responding to before responding.