Replacement amendment for the 2nd amendment. Agree?

Section 1- The right to regulate the use, sale, production, and possession of firearms, shall rest completely in the hands of the state, all federal firearm laws and regulations are null and void, and the supreme court shall not have the jurisdiction to rule on any laws strictly pertaining to firearms with in a state.

Section 2- No person or persons with in the United states or any states or territories thereof, shall be permitted to use, sell, produce, or possess a firearm outside of their state of residency, unless such state shall be in a compact with another state letting their citizens move freely with their firearms across state lines, or where that states firearm license is accepted as legal in the state in which they travel.

Section 3- The second amendment is hereby repealed

Section 4- All people must be given at least 2 days to comply with any new fire arm regulation before being charged, and this amendment goes into effect at midnight after ratification.

 

Uh, no

 

That would, in theory, allow states to ban firearms entirely. I can't support that.

 

Uh....no

 

8 states plus DC would ban guns, atleast 30 would allow you to have basically no gun control and the rest would stay the same.

Whats wrong with letting the populations decide for themselves? Why does one care if a state in which they do not live bans an item?

 

Why not throw the entire Constitution out? It's already ignored by authorities when ever they like, lets just cede all authority to the Government, summarily .

 

I vote no. Keep the 2nd and expand it’s gun right protections more.

 

Same reason we shouldn't let other states ban a religion or a race.

 

Guns are not a religion or a race. As the gunnies are always at great pains to point out guns are not living things. As non-living things, they don't have any rights so their rights can't be protected.

Again, why do you care if people living elsewhere want to ban something? Mind your own business.

 

Are you saying you think 'gun rights' refers to guns having rights?

 

How is it the same at all? We are not talking about peoples beliefs or things they can't control like race. We are talking about banning at item. You still have the right to protect yourself with a compound bow or blowdarts. Look, if Colorado decided to ban guns, that would just give you an extra reason to stay out of Colorado. Please... stop moving to Colorado. You are only raising the housing costs.

 

Rights are not subject to a popular vote.

 

No one is saying they are. I think you don't understand hypotheticals. Would you or not support the states deciding for themselves?

 

Nope. The right of self defense, which by its very nature incorporates the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to being human. Frankly, I'm shocked in 2018 America this is even a topic of discussion. If we had been teaching our youngsters right all along, it wouldn't be. We've lost our way, unfortunately.

 

Rights are subject to the people's vote.
No right is sacrosanct.

 

I vote no.

Keep the 2nd Amendment and place restrictions on problematic firearms.

 

Not no but hell no, You cannot possibly provide a better 1st step on the road to tyranny

 

No, they're not. You could make an argument that rights (that are and should be sacrosanct) can be altered by a combined super-majority of the Congress and State legislatures, but beyond the fact that I don't see that happening, "The People" have no say in the matter aside from expressing their opinions on it.

There is no such thing as a "problematic firearm".

 

"Rights" is a noun. It is a word created by humans and refers to a human concept.

 

You must not be familiar with the Bill of Rights. It protects the rights of citizens, not items. Ex: Freedom of the press doesn't protect a printing press.

In America, all citizens were entitled to liberty. We even fought a Civil War largely to guarantee it.

I hope that helps.

 

There is no such thing as a "problematic firearm".[/QUOTE]A firearm that doesn't fire would be an exception.

 

Oh for sakes, the bill of rights preamble states it only applies to the federal government. The 2A was about the militia instead of a standing army. someone how you guys took "privileges and immunities" you know legal terms for trial law, into meaning, every person in the US has a right to any firearm for which they choose. Funny how people want to beleive that the constitution grants one specified item as a right.

 

What Democrats think the right to bear arms means...

 

I'm sure you're familiar with what Martin Niemoller had to say about "minding your own business" in the face of criminal injustice:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Martin Niemöller


Just because a criminal injustice doesn't affect me, directly, doesn't mean that I should remain silent.

 

They want to disarm Americans and destroy any monument they can somehow tie to being racist. Which is like all of them.

It's all part of fundamentally transforming America into a one party global socialist police state run by oligarchs out of Europe.