Why the Second Amendment needs to be amended or abolished

"AK-15!"

 

How do you know I'm not a citizen?

 

I'm not making that judgment, just noting that one's presence in the US isn't enough to have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Fixed it for you:

And what it should mean for car ownership, possession, and availability

by Durandal

The problem we face is that cars are too easily accessible to people with mental health issues that are often impossible to screen for, at least without violating other civil liberties. Because of the Motor vehicle code and how it is interpreted today, legislatures and authorities are simply unable to keep cars out of the wrong hands.

To help illustrate the problem, imagine if there were no driving test in order to get a license and anyone of sufficient age could drive regardless of visual or other impairments. Imagine that the only way to lose your driving "rights" would be to get into a serious enough accident or get caught breaking a serious traffic law. The roads would be less safe, and there would be no real upshot other than honoring an arbitrarily defined right as opposed to a privilege.

It happens time and time again that someone with homicidal or suicidal tendencies legally obtains one or more cars and proceeds to act out their desire, usually with success due to how hard it is to detect and prevent a driver before the driving begins. There is no legal, and most importantly no Constitutional way, due to the Motor vehicle code is interpreted, to prevent such people from obtaining these vehicles, and it is not feasible to check everyone's psychiatric history, especially if they have no real history to speak of.

Contrast this with how car ownership is handled in other countries where it is legal, but with much higher hurdles to overcome. There are separate licenses granted in Germany, for example, where there is one to possess a car and another to use or drive a loaded car (such as for going on holiday).

We as a culture do not seem to have sufficient respect for cars as a danger to human life despite all of the car violence we suffer from. Cars are given this special revered status in our culture as a way to oppose oppression, defend ourselves, even protect others, but the problem they pose in the wrong hands just seems to be ignored in favor of the preceding notions, as though they take precedence. I see this as justifying a poor practice on our part rather than admit we have a problem and try to fix it.

There is not a conspiracy to discar Americans in order to establish some dictatorship. There are just people like me who would like to see the violence reduced by enacting appropriate restrictions on access to cars, because every news story that comes out about innocent people, often very young people and children, dying by car violence for no good reason at all and in a way that would be preventable without the Motor vehicle code is simply heart-rending. It does not get much worse for me than the repeated school drivings and the subsequent need to turn schools into locked-down secure facilities in hopes of keeping drivers at bay, with children being taught how to hide in case a mass murderer does drive up the way I as a kid remember doing for tornado warnings.

It would be better for everyone if car enthusiasts could have what they want without the ongoing bloodbath that accompanies this today, and police especially would be safer and better off as well, and this in turn might lead to fewer police shootings since they would have less to worry about from suspects.

So, in closing, I want to say again that we do not need the Motor vehicle code as it is interpreted today in order to have cars for driving and going on holiday, or even for home and self defense. We can have our cars and protect the innocent, too, but it will require reworking the idea of car ownership as well as driving loaded cars as a right. This is a time to put ideology aside and be practical as a nation, as a society interested in our own security and that of our fellows.

--

OK, I'll admit I'm having a little fun with your essay, but some important points to consider:

* In 2018 (latest year published by the FBI), there were 14,123 homicides in the USA. 10,265 -- roughly 3/4 of those -- were committed with some type of firearm. There are an estimated 400 million guns in private hands in this country. That means ~0.0025% of the country's privately-held firearms were used to murder someone. Homicide as a cause of death is not even in the top 10. Of those homicides committed with firearms, the lion's share were committed with handguns. A mere 297 of those homicides (2.89%) were committed with rifles -- which would include the dreaded modern sporting rifle (the one most people **** themselves over and incorrectly call 'assault rifles' and that everyone on the left wants to ban).
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

* In 2018, the NHTSA reports 36,560 Americans were killed in or by motor vehicles (pedestrian and bicycle deaths are included in the number). There are ~287 million motor vehicles registered in the USA, 113 million fewer than there are privately-owned firearms, yet you are 356.16% more likely to die by car than to die by gun. Of those motor vehicle fatalities, about 1/3 -- literally the same number as homicide by firearm -- were classified as impaired driver (drunk/drugged). As far as I am concerned those are as intentional as blowing a hole in someone with your Hi-Point 9mm. One positive note in the report: Impaired driving deaths were trending down compared to previous years.
Traffic Deaths Decreased in 2018, but Still 36,560 People Died | NHTSA

* Sadly, in 2018 117 students actually lost their lives in school bus crashes. School bus crash fatalities average 121 per year. However, in that same year, 28 students died in school shootings, making the school bus 418% more deadly than being in a school during an active shooter event.
School Shootings in 2018: How Many and Where (edweek.org)
2009–2018 Data: School-Transportation-Related Crashes (dot.gov)

* Certainly every death is tragic, and every homicide reprehensible. That said, homicide by firearm statistically spread through the country is fortunately much rarer than most people are led to believe. And even more rare is a homicide by firearm committed by a previously law-abiding adult, and most of those are domestic assaults (ie, legal gun owner with no criminal record snaps and shoots his wife, or wife comes home to find hubby in bed with her best friend, double homicide). The majority of homicides by firearm are committed by what the BATF calls 'prohibited persons.' Meaning, a person who meets one of 14 exclusion criteria to purchase a firearm legally (from a gun shop, a gun show, or FFL) and has obtained a firearm illegally and carries a firearm illegally. In fact, the single least criminal demographic in the USA? Conceal-carry permit holders. That group -- about 17 million adults across all race, sex, socioeconomic, geographic lines -- commit fewer crimes than even police officers.
​

Funny thing about criminals is they tend not to obey laws. Laws are for the law-abiding. Gun control targets the wrong group of people (pun intended). When the will to commit violence exists in a person's heart, there's a good chance that person will commit violence given the means, motive, and opportunity. We used to have a place for those people: We called it 'jail.' Want to reduce violence in our society? Reduce violent actors...

 

So all of this stuff is protected under the 2nd Amendment? I also don't understand how it is a legal road vehicle. Or was he breaking the law?

 

Still waiting.

 

Is that anything like an AR-14?

Joe Biden spars with Michigan autoworker over guns - YouTube

 

The 2A does not specify which kind of arms Americans have the right to keep and bear. It is unequivocal in its assurance of "shall not be infringed."

 

I'm not sure which is worse: AK-15, or AR-14!

 

Yeah but a State could ban someone from owning a tank, right?

 

Yes and no. Because we the people have bowed to tyrants and allowed them to eviscerate our Constitution, some states have erected onerous barriers to people keeping and bearing arms. But with the proper paperwork, it is possible in most states to own a tank, a Howitzer, even fighter jets.

 

I had a 69 Biscayne back in the day. It was a true tank. Zero to 60 in a day and a half and if hit by a semi, the semi would lose.

No one said a word.

 

I'm so happy to have moved to Texas! As of 1 Sept 21 any legal gun owner can carry open or concealed. No permit or registration required. We can have Texas-made silencers without all the federal paperwork. Texas is now a "2d amendment sanctuary state". Texas will ignore federal gun laws just like liberal states became "immigration sanctuary states" and ignore federal immigration laws. (I'm so happy liberals established that precedent for us!) No "red laws" here.

TEXAS! WHERE FREEDOM REIGNS!

 

Fighter jets complete with weapon systems?

 

You'll need something called a Destructive Device Permit.

 

I'm waiting to buy a Kel Tech P 50. They are just hitting the market but as soon as they start filling the stores... I'm buying TWO!

 

This is the only relevant ATF page, which says nothing about ANY permit, let alone a permit which permits someone to posses a fully loaded F-18: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-1

 

No, tanks fall under the same category as construction and AG equipment and if equipped with the proper tracks may be operated on public roads for the purpose of relocating them.

The only restriction states put on them are load limits, some rural roads and many bridges cannot support the weight of a tank as such when moving one the route must not exceed the load limits of the roads and bridges the tank will need to operate on.

I ran into this back in the mid nineties after a buddy of mine and I bought a armored personal carrier, we thought we needed a DOT wide load permit to move it, but DOT advised us we cannot move because the tracks didn't have rubber pads on them, so I hired a trucker I knew and we loaded it on his Lowboy to be moved out to my ranch.

Having the tracks modified would have cost us a few thousand dollars, the trucker only charges us $700 plus fuel costs to move it.

 

BATF has no control over owning and flying a F-18, doing such would be regulated by the FAA, DoS and DHS..

I have a friend who owns and demonstrates at air shows a old F-14, I think he paid something like $2.5 for the aircraft and had to put another $600K into it for air-frame and engine re-certs and upgraded avionics, he figured he could break even in 4 years working air shows.

 

Would he be allowed to fit weapon systems to the F-14?

 

What about a tank fitted with weapon systems?

So a tank can go on a freeway, holding up traffic due to low speed?

 

Your argument is a logical fallacy. Do you also apply the first amendment to the ink and quill? The printing press? Does your first amendment right end at television, radio, internet? The simple fact is early forms of semi automatic rifles were already in production. The Austria military had a rifle that fired 16 rounds already, the puckle gun has existed since early 1700s. Clearly the founders of the bill of rights, many of which were inventors in their own right, could have foreseen improvement in firearms.