Reporter/camera man murdered.

[Jenny A]

Um no.  You said we couldn't amend to take away a right.  And we can in the manner you just suggested, we could pass an amendment repealing or drastically altering the 2nd Amendment.  If repealing isn't taking away, I don't what is.

----Practically it isn't going to happen because Congress isn't going to propose it and the states wouldn't ratify it if they did.

Even a repealed right remains.....waiting for the next amendment.  The things we put on the page never go away.  If you don't see the nuance there, then you don't see the manuovering room that our politicians have come to love and depend upon.  Any hypothetical amendment cannot say "Amendment X to the constitution is that there is no amendment 2."  It -can- place so many additional qualifiers upon amendment 2 that, in effect, no one qualifies.  Again, your quote states, explicitly, that we are empowered to amend, not to remove...which is why we don't say remove, but repealed.  I agree that it's duplicitous......but it is what it is, and I'm not who made it that way, lol.

I fail to see any point whatsoever to this distinction, other than that you don't want to admit you were wrong, or mistyped, or hit the submit button too soon (long before you added the 90% of your post made after I quoted you).   The fact that the repealed 2nd Amendment would still be in the Constitution would not cause it to be a right.

[downbeatplumb]

Apparently the shooting was all the fault of us godless heathens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/..._hp_ref=uk

[Napoléon]

Apparently the shooting was all the fault of us godless heathens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/..._hp_ref=uk

Every single murderer over 40 years that I have covered in these circumstances has been either atheistic, agnostic, no religious basis at all

I'm sorry, but how the fuck is this asshole not thrown off the air for this shit? I know it's Faux News but damn, you'd think even they would have some journalistic integrity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even a repealed right remains.....waiting for the next amendment.  The things we put on the page never go away.  If you don't see the nuance there, then you don't see the manuovering room that our politicians have come to love and depend upon.  Any hypothetical amendment cannot say "Amendment X to the constitution is that there is no amendment 2."  It -can- place so many additional qualifiers upon amendment 2 that, in effect, no one qualifies.  Again, your quote states, explicitly, that we are empowered to amend, not to remove...which is why we don't say remove, but repealed.  I agree that it's duplicitous......but it is what it is, and I'm not who made it that way, lol.

I fail to see any point whatsoever to this distinction, other than that you don't want to admit you were wrong, or mistyped, or hit the submit button too soon (long before you added the 90% of your post made after I quoted you).   The fact that the repealed 2nd Amendment would still be in the Constitution would not cause it to be a right.

If you really want to dive in.....if you really think you've got my ass in a vice....I'll just remind you that these amendments do not actually -grant- us those rights in the first place.  This amendment restricts or encapsulates what laws congress may make regarding that right, it does not establish that right.  Even repealing the second amendment -in it's entirety- won't actually take away my right to bare arms.    Mull it over.

[Jenny A]

I fail to see any point whatsoever to this distinction, other than that you don't want to admit you were wrong, or mistyped, or hit the submit button too soon (long before you added the 90% of your post made after I quoted you).   The fact that the repealed 2nd Amendment would still be in the Constitution would not cause it to be a right.

If you really want to dive in.....if you really think you've got my ass in a vice....I'll just remind you that these amendments do not actually -grant- us those rights in the first place.  This amendment restricts or encapsulate what laws congress may make regarding that right, it does not establish that right.  Even repealing the second amendment -in it's entirety- won't actually take away my right to bare arms.    Mull it over.

One non sequitur piled atop another.  Yes, the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, primarily limits government action rather creating positive rights.  So?  Repeal the 2nd and the way is open for gun regulation or even prohibition.  But, shitty policy as it might be, an amendment really could prohibit gun ownership at the same time it repealed the 2nd.  The 18th did that to booze.

[The Grand Nudger]

The way is open for gun regulation even without a repeal, even without amendment.   We already regulate.  Prohibition is also open, and we already prohibit, though, granted, not total prohibition. I don;t see either of those things as infringing upon or removing that right that I do have. I don't see that we couldn't accomplish what we hope to accomplish within what laws we already have. Do you?

[Crossless2.0]

The way is open for gun regulation even without a repeal, even without amendment.   We already regulate.  Prohibition is also open, and we already prohibit, though, granted, not total prohibition.  I don;t see either of those things as infringing upon or removing that right that I do have.  I don't see that we couldn't accomplish what we hope to accomplish within what laws we already have.  Do you?

One problem is that since McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states under the 14th Amendment, it is much harder to regulate, much less prohibit, guns at the state and local level. Prior to that ruling, the way was open -- potentially at least -- for state or local governments to pass restrictive legislation since the 2nd Amendment prior to "McDonald" only strictly applied to the U.S. Congress.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I'll be buying a pump-action shotgun here someday, because I live out in the country. Has nothing to do with other people, has everything to do with wildlife -- coyotes -- being literally in my yard on occasion.

And the immediate thought of an American is "shoot it".

How typical...

There are children in the two houses next to mine. Coyotes need not be rabid to present a danger. And using a gun on it would not be my first response, unless the children were threatened.

I'm sure judging someone from the comfort of your armchair is pretty entertaining, based on how much time you expend doing it, but saying "how typical" is sheer laziness. Certainly you can muster a reply with more thought and less vapidity.

Right?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I'll be buying a pump-action shotgun here someday, because I live out in the country. Has nothing to do with other people, has everything to do with wildlife -- coyotes -- being literally in my yard on occasion.

I would consider this a good reason to have a gun. If I was in charge, I'd investigate to make sure you actually live there and that there is such a threat. (I'm not calling you a liar!) I would take every gun handed out very seriously.

And I'd happily submit to such investigation, just as I do with my driver's license.

[The Grand Nudger]

One problem is that since McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states under the 14th Amendment, it is much harder to regulate, much less prohibit, guns at the state and local level. Prior to that ruling, the way was open -- potentially at least -- for state or local governments to pass restrictive legislation since the 2nd Amendment prior to "McDonald" only strictly applied to the U.S. Congress.

So, looks like we could do some work on the 14th, eh?  To make it easier to do what we can do, but for batshit reasons find it difficult to do.