- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.
The right of the citizen to own/possess a firearm shall not be infringed; however, prior to purchasing a firearm, the citizen must undergo no less then fifteen(15) hours of firearms safety and training and have successfully undergone a physiological test to prove that they aren't mentally ill.
so you don't believe in innocent unless proven guilty
I think that the guy who thinks the toaster is reporting on him to the government probably shouldn't be able to pick up a firearm.
well after the person has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he cannot do that legally
but until then, I don't trust the government to actually have a power to make people subject themselves to such a "test" just to exercise a right. Can you imagine if someone suggested that anyone who wants an abortion or gay marriage do the same?
besides, do you think crooks are going to bother?
The right of the citizen to own/possess a firearm shall not be infringed; however, prior to purchasing a firearm, the citizen must undergo no less then fifteen(15) hours of firearms safety and training and have successfully undergone a physiological test to prove that they aren't mentally ill.
With wording like that, you might as well suggest abolishing the Second Amendment altogether. Maybe that is what you are suggesting. :shrug:
How dare I suggest that if somebody wants a firearm they actually have to learn how to safely use it and ensure that they aren't crazy, right? It's not like firearms are lethal, right?
Our rights are not predicated upon the subjective whims of others. Furthermore, the words "own/possess" are far too vague, and could easily be used by the courts to usurp the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The guy who thinks the toaster is reporting on him to the CIA shouldnt be allowed to endanger himself and others by possessing a firearm.
For every right a citizen has, there's also a responsibility. Government also has responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to keep the citizenry safe from each each other.
An untrained citizen attempting to use a firearm is a recipe for distaster many times. People have to go to drivers ed before they get their license. A similar thing for firearms safety would greatly cut down the number of accidental deaths and injuries.
How dare I suggest that if somebody wants a firearm they actually have to learn how to safely use it and ensure that they aren't crazy, right? It's not like firearms are lethal, right?
The guy who thinks the toaster is reporting on him to the CIA shouldnt be allowed to endanger himself and others by possessing a firearm.
For every right a citizen has, there's also a responsibility. Government also has responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to keep the citizenry safe from each each other.
An untrained citizen attempting to use a firearm is a recipe for distaster many times. People have to go to drivers ed before they get their license. A similar thing for firearms safety would greatly cut down the number of accidental deaths and injuries.
It matters not, the wording of your proposed amendment is idiotic, naive, and dangerous.
You need to prove that causes more than a statistically irrelevant number. you are must making stuff up BTW.
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.
How many people have died because of accidental discharges? When kids get their hands on their parents firearms? Etc, etc, etc
I'd eliminate the explanatory phrase and leave "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The phrase just confuses, and there's no need to explain why you have a right.
in a nation of over 350 million guns, statistically none
How dare I suggest that if somebody wants a firearm they actually have to learn how to safely use it and ensure that they aren't crazy, right? It's not like firearms are lethal, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?