What documents? Why on earth would any country feel bound by stuff that was thought, or even was, a good idea 250 years ago.

No-one should defend the law just because it is the law. If it's bad law it should be changed. If you don't want it changed then defend it because it is good.

Do you have anything relevent to say? How does owning a firearm = penis extension exactly?

I open carry. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, you can do about it. Now quit your damn whining.

I absolutely think the Constitution is good.

As far as no one defending the law because it is the law... I guess all LEO's, military, judges, etc. are just stooges in your opinion?

I'll have to dig it out but there was a study that put a gun in a drawer and then had some kids play in the room, X amount of kids found the gun and Y amount actually pointed the gun at another kid and pulled the trigger

They then took another set of kids, gave them gun safety classes and then repeated the same experiment. Slightly less but still a lot of kids did the same thing.

It's what you'd expect, kids don't have the mental capacity to understand that the object they have can somehow end someone else's life. It's just a toy to them.

Which is why I bolded the sentence. You can legislate away some cases of bad parenting though. Putting child proof lids on medicine bottles does prevent some bad parenting problems even if it infringes on my god given right to easily open a medicine bottle.

In some alternative world where opening medicine bottles easily was a Consitutional right we'd have "child pill safety classes" and "it's the kids' fault for swallowing the pills" and "prosecute the parents but leave my bottle opening ability alone" kids of arguments.

I disagree that the Constitution is impossible to change. It is difficult, but not impossible.

I also disagree with the "living, breathing document" way of thinking. The Constitution outlines principals by which we are governed. There are reasonable processes set forth in the document itself by which it can be amended and by which interpertations can be made.

Do you seriously think that the framers of the Constitution didn't forsee issues arising as time went by?

I hate to beat a dead horse but if you don't like the system of government you have 3 options:
alter the system of government, live within it anyway, or migrate somewhere that has a system of government that better suits your belief system.

I think the Constitution is good as written. I think the processes set forth for amending it are fine.

Dude this entire thread has been you whining about how people who disagree with you are too mean on the internet. Me, I'm saddened by America's gun violence problem and outraged by our lack of political will to engage in meaningful policy to change it. Whining?

No. The word you were looking for was "mocking", as in I mock you, to your face, about your devotion to what is ultimately just a hobby.

You derive self esteem from being a member of a club that anyone with $500 and access to a gun show parking lot can join, bro.

P.S. They even let ME join, I own several firearms and enjoy recreational shooting.

No biggie as far as I am concerned. Mistakes happen. Really doesn't effect the point you were making.

I still think your premise is wrong though

What are you even talking about? I am not a member of any club. I am not even a member of the NRA. Bro.

What it boils down to is that you know nothing about me, yet you make generalized statements about my self asteem and what not.

Mocking to my face huh? Because we all know mocking someone on an internet forum=mocking them to their face.

Plus you are only mocking me because you don't like my views.

Now go play with your guns in whatever club you are a member of.

No that's precisely missing the point. Law officers have a responsibility to the law as it is, whether it's good or bad. What the law should be, is for all of us to decide and 'they liked it 250 years ago' is a very poor argument.

If you were writing a constitution from fresh would you include the right to bear arms or not? And why?

Yes I would 100% include the individual right to bare arms.

I would do so because I believe it is the right that protects all the others. I believe that in a free society people should have a right to defend themselves with the best tools available. I do not believe the right is unlimited or unrestrictable. I know most here don't agree and that is fine. They have that right.

On a different note, it was mentioned here that firearms and ammo could be highly taxed to reduce availability. How is this any different than a poll tax? Wouldn't this directly infringe on the poors 2A rights as a poll tax did on their right to vote?

i would 100% include the right to bare chests too, not just arms.

there are far better tools available today to "defend" yourself with than whatever tools you are allowed to have now. your "right" is already limited and restricted.

Uh, is that supposed to be a news flash?

FWIW, I have the training, permits, and authorizations it takes to possess, store, and use explosives. I am also permitted to posses and use silencers. My rights are a little less restricted than you may think.

Oh joy, another gun enthusiast trying to co opt the civil rights movement.

Has nothing to do with civil rights per se. The precedent is the same for any right. Excessive taxation disenfranchises one part of the population more than another. Do you believe in equal rights or don't you?

The second amendment does not say anything about the ability to defend oneself

It's important not to price people out of the market for things that are important, food, clothing etc. But killing machines which are proven to be net negative to a household, do not qualify imo

No, currently it is impossible in practice. Congress can't pass bills it actually needs to pass, how on earth are you going to get 2/3 of them to agree to even get a new amendment proposed?

Today is the 227th anniversary of the enactment of the US Constitution. Not counting the Bill of Rights (all of which arose during ratification) and Reconstruction (which the South was basically forced to accept), there have only been fourteen amendments in all that time. And it's not because the Constitution was such an infallible document.

Quoting the amendment procedure only proves that such a thing exists, not that it actually works.

Do you seriously think the framers (or anyone, for that matter) could see 50 years into the future, let alone 250?

Laws must change as conditions change, that much the framers did agree on. They just screwed up the method to change things.

so, if there was a better method to change the constitution, do you think we'd have removed the second amendment?

That is a really good question. Quick answer: I don't think it would ever have been fully repealed, but I think there's a very good chance it have been amended somehow, probably by the mid-20th century, given that there was a full standing army no longer supported by militias at this point, and that the NRA was not yet the monolith it currently is.

You're just a modern-day Rosa Parks, aren't you.

It's not even about amending the second amendment. The way it is viewed today is basically a decade old and only because scalia didn't keel over sooner.

yup. only a truly contorted reading of the 2A gave us this guns as self defense "right".

which will change, with any luck.

The definition of militia given at the top of the page upon googling "militia definition":

mi·li·tia

məˈliSHə/

noun

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.


I'd say the Justices that voted in the majority in Heller got it just right and the 4 dissenters were the one trying to convulute the meaning of 2A.

What other logical reason is there to bear arms besides hunting? So they were talking about the right to hunt, collect, firearms, shoot targets etc. ?

I think not.