The 2nd Amendment needs a amendment to clarify it.

This would be a good place to start, if we as a nation by a majority want these implemented. Then it should be done. Majority should define all things other then the protection of the minority by the majority

 

Holy cow, another poll. Try providing a link, screenshots mean nothing without context. How do we know this isn't from a rabid anti gun source.
The second amendment is the most susinct amendment of all in the bill of rights.

 

I think the 2nd is just fine the way it is.

 

Look up amending the constitution, it takes a lot more than a simple majority.
2/3 both houses, 3/4 of the states.

 

It would take a 3/4 majority of the states to ratify a change to an Amendment. Good luck, ain't going to happen in my lifetime....

 

No it doesn't. It simply needs to be obeyed by the Federal government. Ditto for all of the other amendments. And why did the Obama Administration walk a .50 cal to El Chappo?

 

At least you guys are finally taking the legal and constitutional approach. If you hate the 2nd Amendment, as you guys apparently do, then amend the constitution.

Let Hillary and Bernie run on that.

 

The majority of Germany followed hitler.

 

Never said otherwise, If the majority of the population wants these things, then the thing to do is put as much energy as they can into doing what they want done. I think thats kind of like how this country works. The gun bubbas have to be reined in , they want no restrictions at all and the majority does . I've heard and seen enough of these clowns to know what a danger they are to any neighborhood they live in. If you have rented or owned a house for any length of time there is always that neighbor that is a wacko. And you want him to be able to have as many guns as he wants. I don't even want the wacko but you'll try your damnedest to put a dozen guns in his closet, Like a good American.

 

Don't hate it, but looking at the gun goons out there , I know we are in trouble, The problem isn't the amendment , the only threat there is to the second are these goof balls that think there should be no restriction.

 

Just what is your motivation? You have your derogatory names for what is now the MAJORITY of voting aged Americans, and your stereotypical, yet juvenile generalizations, but ZERO references. Don't you have any constructive uses for your time?

 

I'll help with this Chuck. It's from a Washington Post article from a while back. Funny enough, it's old post from August 2012. It was taken from a CNN/ORC poll. So... I knew since it was more than likely crap since that's basically all that's been posted (old in this case), I would find something that goes the other way since that's usually what he asks for (I would find one that is actually current though). So, here it is:



^ This is a more up to date CNN/ORC poll that shows the opposite of what he is saying yet again... go figure. I had to use the exact same polling source so there could be no arguement. Thought it was kinda fitting.

So, here is a current poll that states the exact opposite of what you are saying jblander. It's even taken from the exact same place.

 

As a matter of fact... from your Police officers:

^ This survey had 30 questions.


^ 71% of cops say that banning semi automatic firearms would have no affect on crime rates. 20% said it would actually make crime worse.


^ Almost 90 percent of officers believe that deaths would go down if armed citizens were present during a mass shooting.


So, there you have it from the Police, the people who actually deal with the subject of gun violence as a day job. Here is the link to the page:
https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legis...ey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

 

Here are more....



^ Only 39% support gun control here.....

 

I support the right to own guns.

That said, at some point, "arms" are going to have to be better defined in the future. Just taking a look at the leaps and bounds
technological advances will bring, we will reach a point where "arms" could mean potentially indefensible assassination tools or
weapons so destructive that having them on the open market would be hazardous to national security.

I would rather see gun advocates take an active roll in helping define those limits rather than just digging their heels in and
ALWAYS saying, "No!" to any restrictions. If not, someday there will be a slaughter so heinous that the backlash against gun owners
will be a tide that cannot be stopped. If gun owners are seen as reasonable stewards rather than rabid xenophobes, then it will be
difficult for anti-gun nuts to sway the general populace against all gun ownership.

 

Well the way I look at it, any restriction that you want to place on 2nd Amendment rights, without changing the constitution, without being challenged, could then be applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights. First Amendment? Who could argue against registration and background checks for journalists, or pastors? We do want common sense press and religion regulation don't we?

So that's why I do support your constitutional approach. If you are going to rape the constitution, do it in the open, with her tied to a bedpost, rather than giving her a roofie and leave her wondering what happened.

 

There is no comparison between one Amendment and another, the second gives support for every single ridiculous idea that comes out of the minds of gun bubbas, we except that all things aren't covered automatically , none of my neighbors have a H bomb in their arsenal. The difference is simply what is and isn't reasonable and if it has to be done with a Amendment to the constitution, fine, the majority don't want what the gun bubbas want. They want reasonable restrictions.
It's like state rights, it's bypassed all the time because they know that some right wing states would bring back segregation and do everything possible to take away the voting rights of the Democrats. Which we see all over the country now. The point is this , the states can't be allowed to do whatever they want , if they were, there would be states that everyone had to carry to protect themselves from each other. Of course there would be guards at the border in states like in the south that wants to do everything they can do ,to keep the population there as dumb as possible. They are more easily controlled that way.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd except that, its simple, what the population wants should be done.

 

Thats funny it cant get anymore updated then this.

 

This could be looked at two ways, they know , or they are so gun orientated that their answer is a gun all the time. With all the videos on line of cops shooting blacks , I lean toward the second.

 

ABC Poll

 

The point is, polls are worthless as pointed out in a different thread. For every one you put up, I could put up yet another saying the opposite. The problem is, polls are taken from either liberal sites, or conservative sites. There is not way to control a poll, it's useless and as good as taking a complete strangers word for fact. This is what every other person including other liberals have been saying this entire time. You are the only one who thinks random polls means anything. Everyone else knows that polls are NOT factual, and do NOT make a good argument. I'm sure you and I could go back and forth over and over again with polls, but that doesn't prove anything does it? No.

 

agree, the problem is some on the right and left think of it more like a privilege then a right

 

First, they get defined as new weapons come out. There are cannons and single person weapons that will burn your skin, like a microwave. There are guns that shoot lasers capable of blinding a human in milliseconds used to disable cameras and other electronic systems. There are weapons that control the range of sound waves capable of blowing your ear drums. These are actually old weapon systems. They are also regulated. This is not a problem.

We don't have an option to say not to new restrictions like that. The Feds put the rules on the books and it's there. Most people don't know so they don't care, out of sight, out of mind. When it comes to firearms however, something that millions of people have, ya, you bet we're not going to let someone's feelings change the rules for everyone.

You're not going to change the way people view firearms. Slowly but surely (as the facts from the FBI show), more and more NEW gun owners are trying this out. Factual compiled data has been shown again and again (not polls, not blog crap, but facts) that should have opened people's eyes, but it hasn't. See, when having a discussion with most of us, you have to realize that we are going off of facts, not feelings. The arguments don't mesh. We of course don't care about your feelings as it is irrational to argue based on feelings. The facts that our own government put forth for everyone to see is that 73% of murders are done by repeat offenders. Out of all of the murders with firearms, and 77% of criminals got their firearms illegally (40% on the black market, 37% with the help of a family member or friend - straw purchases are a felony and giving a firearm to a known criminal is a felony). New firearm ownership is on the rise. 64,402 people a day are buying firearms. There are 400+million firearms in the hands of good people that never do any harm to anyone on a daily basis. Concealed carry permits have more than doubled in recent years. The murder rate is, and has been going down for years. There are other facts, but I think you get the point, maybe.

Our problem is not the firearms in this country, it's the fact that bad guys keep getting their hands on them. New laws don't affect the criminals. That's what you guys don't get. They don't get their guns from the store like we do, they get them from other bad guys that get them from the stolen market, or the more than 2000 guns the US Government put in the hands of criminals on purpose. Then there is the guns that are stolen from the government... Then there are home invasions where people steal safes that have firearms in them, and just steal the guns in the home not locked up of course also. From the Bureau of Justice:

This is where criminals are getting their firearms from. It's not people going to the store and buying them, it's from completely illegally attained guns.

The question should be, how do you stop the bad guys from getting the illegal firearms. HINT: The answer will have nothing to do with the rest of the population of good guys.

 

Well said.

The ONLY way to prevent an individual from getting a firearm is to segregate him from the populous. And since the vast majority of firearm-related crime is perpetrated by repeat offenders, it makes sense to re-evaluate the current revolving-door criminal justice system, and its egregious practice of returning known-violent individuals to our peaceable society over and again.

 

Haha.... The first poll shows that people think gun control laws are a low priority.
The other poll shows that only forty percent of people thinks Obama and congress should address gun violence. Addressing gun violence doesn't even nessessarily mean gun control. Justice system reform would be far more immediate and effective.

Polls are not fact. There is always a contradictory poll.

See how easy......



"Just 42% of the public thinks stricter gun control laws will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while 52% think increased gun ownership increases public safety."

http://www.investors.com/politics/policy/obama-fails-to-convince-public-on-gun-control-poll-finds/

Try using data and facts for once, no one on here has ever given polls any credibility.