Gun registration

The Second cannot protect the guns of the militia. Given the Constitutional powers of Congress and the executive branch, all the president needs to do is call the militia into government service where Congress can vote to disarm and disband them.

 

Well this disagreement is becoming pointless. I’m citing the internal illogic of the second amendment as it seems to mostly protect militias but also sort of protects individuals as maybe an afterthought. Your view is to cite legal precedent regarding it which is as fluid as the political climate in which such decisions are made. It needs to be revisited as an additional Amendment in my opinion. Clearly there need to be checks for past criminality and mental disorders when people are trying to buy a lethal weapon for example.

 

By making sure the people will always have access to the weapons necessary to form said militias.
The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and thus, the protection afforded to it by the 2nd, is not tied to membership in said militia.

 

Can we at least agree that the second amendment needs to be reworded cause it’s vague right now.

 

Who would reword it, and who would ratify it?

 

Why? The "vague" wording was settled 12 years ago:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

The US constitution provides for amendments.

 

Me.
Smart people.

 

This is true until SCOTUS says otherwise. This is why the US needs a constitutional amendment for clarification.

 

Everything is true until the USSC says otherwise, and the wording doesn't matter.

 

I don't think they can rewrite constitutional amendments especially in the bill of rights.

 

Of all the 10, this is the most vague.

 

Laws that existed prior to the BoR are not relevent. The common-usage meaning of the word 'regulate' in the 1700-1800s was 'to ensure adequate supply and proper function', not 'restrict via bureaucracy'. As far as concealed weapons go, take that up with the banners. They're the ones trying to equate open carry with 'threatenning behavior' as a means to dissuade from its practice. I prefer open carry .

 

Scotus doesn’t mess with the first or 13th amendments. Because the wording is much clearer.

 

Ok but are restrictions on mental health and prior criminality worthy reasons to restrict ownership?

 

The SCotUS "messes" with the bill of rights all the time, and it doesn't matter what they actually say.

 

True, but if the Democrats rewrote enough, would enough red states ratify it to matter, and if the Republicans rewrote it, would enough blue states ratify it to count?

 

We repealed the heck out of the 18th Amendment; according to Article V, it doesn't appear that any part of the Constitution is protected from Amendment.

 

Current restrictions, restrictions incorporated by the Gun Control Act of 1968 or expanded restrictions?

 

But look at the priorities.

 

The amendment process is difficult as it was designed to be.

 

It is not unreasonable to deny gun ownership to someone who has a history of violence.

 

Sure it is; a history of violence is a very broad definition of past behavior. Does spanking a three year old for running the street mean you shouldn't own a gun?

 

Should there be any restrictions on owning a lethal weapon?

 

No it isn't it isn't vague in the least.

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.

It says very clearly the right of the people. It doesn't see you have to be part of a militia or anything like that. It's quite possibly the least vague of them all.