Obama changes (insert) amendment???

[violiav]

I was a little rusty on my knowledge of the Amendment process, so I found some information on it. A good explanation of the process

This is actually an interesting point:

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

[wolfie]

The only ban is the assault weapons ban, which had its problems but served a useful purpose. There really isn't a need for citizens to own assault weapons unless they are collectors.

By the same token, back in the late 1700s, there was no need for citizens to own muskets (same type of weapon as used by standing armies back then, just like assault rifles are the same type of weapon as used by standing armies now) unless they were collectors. After all, the colonists could have overthrown the oppressive British using bows and arrows. The 2nd amendment was a "last resort" right in case the government ignored other rights.

[Panacea]

By the same token, back in the late 1700s, there was no need for citizens to own muskets (same type of weapon as used by standing armies back then, just like assault rifles are the same type of weapon as used by standing armies now) unless they were collectors. After all, the colonists could have overthrown the oppressive British using bows and arrows. The 2nd amendment was a "last resort" right in case the government ignored other rights.

Actually, no. During the colonial period through the early Federal period, all men aged 16 to 60 were required to own and maintain in good working order a musket and drill with the local militia once a month.

The reason the Founders put the 2nd amendment in there is because British authorities, seeing the colonials were getting restive, tried to seize local weapons arsenals and replace militias with regular troops who were housed in local homes by force. The Founders were in keeping with John Locke's philosophy that citizens have the right to overthrow their government when it does not respond to their needs by force. Their fears were understandable.

However, we've had a stable democracy for over 230 years (the Civil War not withstanding).

We've learned as a society how to advocate for change without violence and we have a government that is ultimately susceptible to non violent advocacy. We learned in the Civil War that the arguments of secession don't work. And there is no one with standing to rally people to that kind of action anyway: no John C Calhoun, no Jefferson Davis. And no one to lead an armed rebellion: no Robert E Lee, no Stonewall Jacksons. The only people talking that talk are soreheads who can't get their act together.

That's why I don't think people need to own assault rifles.

But even if I'm wrong about that, consider this: we don't have state militias any more. We're not required to own weapons and drill with them. Most people who tried to rise up against the government would be quickly slaughtered by our own troops, like the folks in Syria are being slaughtered right now. Building an arsenal to rise up against the government is just plain stupid.

That doesn't mean I think the government should waste a lot of time restricting weapons. I'd rather see them require competency and licensure: not a permit, but validation that the gun owner knows how to use and store a weapon safely, with re qualification tests. Concealed carry permit holders should pass a "Hogan's Alley" scenario and training on when NOT to use a gun.

[BlaqueKatt]

His administration has also indicated they will support and try to implement the UN Small Arms treaty.

and the small arms treaty ONLY applies to EXPORTED firearms, it would have zero effect on firearm ownership. In fact they are hesitant to enact it until they have various groups ensure it is nowhere near running afoul of the second amendment. (I actually read the entire treaty when someone claimed it was "Obama's end run around the constitution to ban guns"

[Panacea]

and the small arms treaty ONLY applies to EXPORTED firearms, it would have zero effect on firearm ownership. In fact they are hesitant to enact it until they have various groups ensure it is nowhere near running afoul of the second amendment. (I actually read the entire treaty when someone claimed it was "Obama's end run around the constitution to ban guns"

Durn, I knew that and forgot to mention it.

Even if it did apply in the US, it would quickly run afoul of a SCOTUS challenge and be overturned.

[Tanasi]

The Supreme Court has already said that the government can set reasonable limits on gun ownership, to include things like background checks, and restricting certain types of weapons. But that power isn't unlimited; very restrictive hand gun laws in DC and Chicago were tossed out and Obama was fine with it. I have not heard him say he wants to get into gun control; where did you hear this? What interview? When?

The only ban is the assault weapons ban, which had its problems but served a useful purpose. There really isn't a need for citizens to own assault weapons unless they are collectors.



It won't happen at all with this Congress. Even if gun control advocates could get 60 votes to override a filibuster, they'd never get 67 to get a supermajority.

The rub lies in the word reasonable. What you may find reasonable I may not but even then I'm still having to surrender some of my rights to appease others.

So tell me what useful purpose did the "assault" weapons ban serve??? Except for some hardcore anti-gun folks almost all agree is was failure at best.
I can tell you for a fact that law didn't ban the first "assault weapon.

Also since when did "need" become a condition of a right??? It if going to be applied to one right then perhaps it can be applied to others for example: A woman doesn't need to have an abortion unless of course her life is in danger.

I agree that the UN treaty most likely wouldn't pass the senate. IMO just bringing something like that before the senate should be grounds for a trial for treason. Our ambassador to the UN shouldn't even be participating.

[Tanasi]

But even if I'm wrong about that, consider this: we don't have state militias any more. We're not required to own weapons and drill with them. Most people who tried to rise up against the government would be quickly slaughtered by our own troops, like the folks in Syria are being slaughtered right now. Building an arsenal to rise up against the government is just plain stupid.

That doesn't mean I think the government should waste a lot of time restricting weapons. I'd rather see them require competency and licensure: not a permit, but validation that the gun owner knows how to use and store a weapon safely, with re qualification tests. Concealed carry permit holders should pass a "Hogan's Alley" scenario and training on when NOT to use a gun.

Some states if not all still have Home Guard which is the modern equivalent. I was part of it for 20 years after having retired from the USA. The Home Guard role is to step in when the National Guard is otherwise occupied. For example we were put on call-up when my state's largest NG unit was sent Iraq.

You evidentially think the second paragraph is reasonable, now apply similar requirements to the first amendment. Yep just as soon as you pass this background check, demonstrate your reading and comprehension skills and of course the 10 day cooling off period this book will be yours. Don't forget you annual book case inspection is coming up and we don't want to see any books, magazines, newspapers or internet capable devices unsecured like last time.
FYI the annual bookcase inspection "fee" has been increased so please have $500 cash available for the inspector. That's reasonable, No???

[ngc_7331]

You evidentially think the second paragraph is reasonable, now apply similar requirements to the first amendment. Yep just as soon as you pass this background check, demonstrate your reading and comprehension skills and of course the 10 day cooling off period this book will be yours. Don't forget you annual book case inspection is coming up and we don't want to see any books, magazines, newspapers or internet capable devices unsecured like last time.
FYI the annual bookcase inspection "fee" has been increased so please have $500 cash available for the inspector. That's reasonable, No???

Books don't kill people. I guess if you dropped them from a high enough distance, they possibly could, especially if it was a Stephen King novel. Or if you get a fatal infection via paper cut. But yeah, books are a kind of non-deadly form of entertainment.

(I like guns. I enjoy firing them whenever I have the time and the money for ammo. I find it extremely stress relieving. But this was just too ridiculous not to respond to.)

[Mytical]

To be honest, it was a different world back then. Right now, even if a person had an AK-47, there is little that they could do if the military decided 1) that they would grind the populace under their heel..and 2) Throw liberties out the door.

A large group of people, back then, carrying muskets had a chance..albeit small, against the Military. Now, even if you had much larger weapons, short of atomic weapons or such..a militia would have to do gorilla warfare, and even then it would be fighting a losing battle. With current technology, IF the military's hands were not tied with various rules (which I am assuming should they try to establish military law would be thrown out the window) the wars we are having in other nations would be a whole new ballgame. Don't get me wrong, I am glad the rules are in place..and innocent people are not as likely to be crushed..but remove those rules..and gorilla warfare becomes a lot less successful.

A fully automated weapon does squat against a tank. I guess silicon bullets might change that, as that would pierce the armor of a tank..but I am guessing that the first thing a military coop would do is grind down on the supply of that. Remember they would be able to search wherever the heck they would like, not caring about 'rights'. So while they may not get all of the 'cop killer' bullets..the number would drop drastically.

Infrared, night vision, the list goes on and on and the military has ALL of it. The main things that hinder them is they don't want civilian casualties. Remove that block..and a rebellion would be a lot more bloody.

So people owning weapons now are not as big of a deal. Yes, I know..right now gorilla warfare is very successful against our military..because they have rules of engagement. With a military coop, most likely those rules would be tossed..and the chances of a successful rebellion drops like a rock. Not impossible, but very very bloody.

I know..I've rambled..and a lot of people will disagree with my assessment..because gorilla warfare works in a LOT of places..usually backed by the US government mind you. The nations it is successful in usually do not have the technology we do either..*shrugs*. I might be totally wrong, but I think people would be surprised if a rebellion was tried..as long as ...

1) The military people went along with it. Which I don't see happening. Nobody wants to potentially fire on their relatives/friends/ etc.

2) The military removes the current rules which tie their hands. Which I don't see happening either.

3) Other nations didn't cease the opportunity to attack America while it was happening.

[Tanasi]

Books don't kill people. I guess if you dropped them from a high enough distance, they possibly could, especially if it was a Stephen King novel. Or if you get a fatal infection via paper cut. But yeah, books are a kind of non-deadly form of entertainment.

(I like guns. I enjoy firing them whenever I have the time and the money for ammo. I find it extremely stress relieving. But this was just too ridiculous not to respond to.)

Physically most books can do little to no harm and that's a fact. So tell me why other than money did the British push the stamp act on all printed material??? I think it was to censor what was published. Were not the words and ideas in Thomas Paine's pamphlets Common Sense and The American Crisis not inspiring and revolutionary??? John Adams said "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.” Those words, those beautiful words spelled out danger to King George because it inspired the common man to risk his life, liberty and scared honor to be free.
If books are dangerous then why were so many burned by Stalin and Mao??? I don't think it was to keep warm.

I glad that you enjoy guns, I also share the same enjoyment. Please use firearms in a responsible manner.

[Tanasi]

To be honest, it was a different world back then. Right now, even if a person had an AK-47, there is little that they could do if the military decided 1) that they would grind the populace under their heel..and 2) Throw liberties out the door.

A large group of people, back then, carrying muskets had a chance..albeit small, against the Military. Now, even if you had much larger weapons, short of atomic weapons or such..a militia would have to do gorilla warfare, and even then it would be fighting a losing battle. With current technology, IF the military's hands were not tied with various rules (which I am assuming should they try to establish military law would be thrown out the window) the wars we are having in other nations would be a whole new ballgame. Don't get me wrong, I am glad the rules are in place..and innocent people are not as likely to be crushed..but remove those rules..and gorilla warfare becomes a lot less successful.

A fully automated weapon does squat against a tank. I guess silicon bullets might change that, as that would pierce the armor of a tank..but I am guessing that the first thing a military coop would do is grind down on the supply of that. Remember they would be able to search wherever the heck they would like, not caring about 'rights'. So while they may not get all of the 'cop killer' bullets..the number would drop drastically.

Infrared, night vision, the list goes on and on and the military has ALL of it. The main things that hinder them is they don't want civilian casualties. Remove that block..and a rebellion would be a lot more bloody.

So people owning weapons now are not as big of a deal. Yes, I know..right now gorilla warfare is very successful against our military..because they have rules of engagement. With a military coop, most likely those rules would be tossed..and the chances of a successful rebellion drops like a rock. Not impossible, but very very bloody.

I know..I've rambled..and a lot of people will disagree with my assessment..because gorilla warfare works in a LOT of places..usually backed by the US government mind you. The nations it is successful in usually do not have the technology we do either..*shrugs*. I might be totally wrong, but I think people would be surprised if a rebellion was tried..as long as ...

1) The military people went along with it. Which I don't see happening. Nobody wants to potentially fire on their relatives/friends/ etc.

2) The military removes the current rules which tie their hands. Which I don't see happening either.

3) Other nations didn't cease the opportunity to attack America while it was happening.

First of all do not discount a gorilla war. It was used effectively in Afghanistan, Viet Nam and here in the USA. I was a combatant in RVN while we the military wasn't defeated, we also weren't allowed to fight as we wanted to. The VC bleed us enough until the politicians back home knuckled under. During our revolution the southern strategy was almost entirely gorilla war with the Battle of Kings Mountain being one of the biggest battles in the south. I had several family members there.
Don't discount the common man and woman. Tens of millions of us have military experience and 10s of thousands of us have direct combat experience. We know how to kick ass and lots of us have done so. Do not discount equipment in the civilian realm. While lots of it came from the military market lots of it is as good as or better than military versions. I've used both military and civilian "night" vision, the civilian is better. I don't have clue as to what a silicone bullet is but I'd seriously doubt it would penetrate tank armor. That being said a tank can easily be disabled without destroying it and it's not that difficult. If it can't move then a molotov cocktail is a very effective weapon.
Yes the military has bigger weapons in some cases better. Guess what we also know how to use them and what weapons we have now we have lots more that we can use to acquire bigger and better weapons. I don't think atomic weapons would be used after all there's no safe place to be on that battle field and not to mention it's civilians that build them.
If there was a military coup I don't the military as a whole would come out in defense of the government but in defense of the people. After all we're their family, they come from us. A foreign army invades??? They'll have us all to deal with. Guess what we can use their weapons just as well.
Civilians owning their own weapons is a big deal. You're assuming that the civilians will rise in opposition to the federal government. What if they rise against a city or state??? In my AO returning WWII veterans using personal and National Guard rifles rose in opposition to their county government in enforce a fair and legitimate election. They rose when the state and federal government refused to intervene. They surrounded the sheriff, his deputies and corrupt politicians in the jail house and pounded on them until they gave up. It was called the Battle of Athens.

[Nekojin]

Small tangent, to all sides here: It's spelled "guerrilla." Gorilla warfare is when apes start throwing rocks at each other.

Guerrilla warfare by US citizens against the US government is possible, but unlikely at this point. For people to get pissed off enough to turn to open warfare against the government, they have to be directly threatened in some way by the government, or feel that they are. As long as most people have their cake and circuses (read: Facebook and American Idol), they're going to be too comfortable to risk everything in overt opposition to the government. We're a long way from that, yet.

To put it another way: Guerrillas need a Cause to fight for. There's no Cause right now - nothing big enough to scare people into giving up their trailers and apartments and go "underground."

[Andara Bledin]

I'm always amused by the fact that so many people assume that if the government got out of control and the people chose to rise up that every single member of the military would side with the government; as if everybody in the various branches of military were just cogs in a great machine.

I'm not even going to address the 1st vs 2nd Amendment argument beyond to say it's ridiculous. I'll get on board when something that makes sense is brought to the table.

^-.-^

[protege]

Physically most books can do little to no harm and that's a fact. So tell me why other than money did the British push the stamp act on all printed material??? I think it was to censor what was published.

It wasn't so much for censorship (the paper was sold blank...except for the stamp printed on it), as to raise revenue. The English felt that the colonies should pay for the troops stationed here and enacted the tax as a result. At the time, before the peace of 1763, France was still a threat. After that period, colonists saw no need for the troops. Protests grew--including attacks on Stamp Act collectors--as well as burning the stamps.

If books are dangerous then why were so many burned by Stalin and Mao??? I don't think it was to keep warm.

Stalin, Mao, as well as Hitler, burned books and other "offensive" materials as a form of censorship. Think about it, what better way to squelch opposition than to take away their "voice?" Can't have those dangerous ideas going against the state now, can we?

[s_stabeler]

Physically most books can do little to no harm and that's a fact. So tell me why other than money did the British push the stamp act on all printed material??? I think it was to censor what was published.

a) Stamp Duty was (and Is, in the UK, incidentally) on official documents- it's the rough equivalent of a fee to notarize a document.
b) Stamp Duty censored nothing, since the stamped paper was sold blank
c) it was to raise revenue. Funnily enough, it actually came along with a tax CUT, not rise- it's just the taxes before were never enforced; now they would be. (HMMM, sounds like the Repblicans today- cut taxes, enforce the tax laws harder) Note that the Boston tea party, cited as one of the forerunnners of the American revolution? Was done by smugglers irritated at the competition from cheaper legit tea.

In short, there is NO comparison between restricting Gun ownership and restricting the right to free Speech. A Gun has only one purpose- to kill. Speech can have several purposes.