The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011

[ekg]

Please tell me you didn't go there?

?
 

[Howey]

?
 

The untried and untrue tactic: "If we take away the guns, they'll still kill with knifes" trick. 

[lil mike]

*Yeah. 2nd Amendment. Want a gun, Mr. 2nd Amendment Don't Tread on Me? Join the National Guard. TaDa! You're in the militia now!

You should know better than that.The National Guard is not a militia in the 18th century meaning of the term.  Citizens are.

[Howey]

You should know better than that.The National Guard is not a militia in the 18th century meaning of the term.  Citizens are.

By the time the 2nd Amendment came about, we already had an army called the Continental Army. It was comprised of   volunteers.The 2nd Continental Congress formed the militia at the state level, comparable to today's National Guard.

[lil mike]

By the time the 2nd Amendment came about, we already had an army called the Continental Army. It was comprised of   volunteers.The 2nd Continental Congress formed the militia at the state level, comparable to today's National Guard.

I'm curious as to where you are getting your history from.  The Continental Army was disbanded years before there the Bill of Rights was ratified.  The Militia's existence preceded both the 2nd Continental Congress and the Continential Army.

Anyway, it shouldn't matter to you what the 2nd Amendment says or what the founders intended.  As a liberal, aren't you one of those "living constitution" guys who think the Constitution should be reinterpeted to reflect the whims of the day?

[Howey]

Anyway, it shouldn't matter to you what the 2nd Amendment says or what the founders intended.  As a liberal, aren't you one of those "living constitution" guys who think the Constitution should be reinterpeted to reflect the whims of the day?

You should too. After all, it does say "well regulated militia". 

[lil mike]

You should too. After all, it does say "well regulated militia". 

That's just sloppy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But let me put this in language a leftist can understand:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

Read that and let me know what you think.

Not that I really want to dissuade you from your opinion.  It's been useful in scaring people from voting for dems for a generation.

[Howey]

Read that and let me know what you think.

What do I think? I think the NRA paid her a hell of a lot of money to write that.

Here's the thing. My opinion on gun regulation will never be the norm. Yet, I stand by my words.

No article, I don't care if it's from God, will convince me that guns "save lifes".

[lil mike]

What do I think? I think the NRA paid her a hell of a lot of money to write that.

Here's the thing. My opinion on gun regulation will never be the norm. Yet, I stand by my words.

No article, I don't care if it's from God, will convince me that guns "save lifes".

That's not my issue.  Do you think ownership of guns is a constitutional right?  If not, I'm curious as to why not.

[Howey]

That's not my issue.  Do you think ownership of guns is a constitutional right?  If not, I'm curious as to why not.

That's way too loaded of a question to answer with a "yes" or "no". I will say that my opinion is that gun ownership is a right, but along with that right comes a responsibility, as the following states.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.

I can also support this:

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment — an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill — this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation. Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

[lil mike]

That's way too loaded of a question to answer with a "yes" or "no". I will say that my opinion is that gun ownership is a right, but along with that right comes a responsibility, as the following states.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html


I can also support this:

Well, I think that the fact that you want to replace the 2nd amendment is proof enough that you grudglingly accept that it means what it says.  That's progress.